Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 7:1
Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
1. Then said the high priest, Are these things so? ] Read, And the high priest said, &c. Thus he called upon Stephen to answer the charges laid against him.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then said the high priest – See the notes on Mat 2:4. In this case the high priest seems to have presided in the council.
Are these things so? – To wit, the charge alleged against him of blasphemy against Moses and the temple, Act 6:13-14.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 7:1-53
Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
The high priest and his question
This functionary was probably Theophilus, son-in-law of Caiaphas. The ex-officio president of the council called for the defence against the charge of blasphemy (Act 6:13-14). The question, equivalent to guilty or not guilty, appears to have been put with great mildness, possibly under the influence of the angel-like aspect. (Bp. Jacobson.)
And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken.—
Stephens defence
In order to understand this wonderful and somewhat difficult speech, it will be well to bear in mind that a threefold element runs through it.
I. He shows apologetically that so far from dishonouring Moses or God, he believes and holds in mind 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, he bursts forth into a holy vehemence of invective against their rejection of God.
II. But simultaneously and parallel with this he also proceeds didactically, showing them that a future prophet was pointed out by Moses as the final lawgiver of 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.
III. Even more remarkably does the polemic element run through the speech. It is not I, but you, who from the first times till now have rejected and spoken against God. And this element just appearing (Act 7:9), and again more plainly (Act 7:25-28), and again more pointedly still in Act 7:35, becomes dominant in Act 7:39-44, and finally prevails to the exclusion of the others in Act 7:51-53. (Dean Alford.)
Stephens defence
I. The source of his argument. The sacred history of the Jews which accusers and accused alike revered. In doing this he secured their attention by giving them to understand–
1. That his faith in that history was as strong as theirs.
2. That he was thoroughly conversant with that history.
II. Its point–that all Gods dealings with His people pointed to those very changes which he was accused of advocating. This position he makes good by showing–
1. That the external condition of the Church had undergone repeated changes. There was a change under
(1) Abraham (Act 7:2-8).
(2) Joseph (Act 7:9-16).
(3) Moses (Act 7:17-44).
(4) David (Act 7:45-46).
2. That the present external state of the Church had no existence before Solomon; and that even this was intended from the beginning to be temporary (Act 7:47-50).
III. Its application (Act 7:51-53). Mark–
1. The vile character he gives them.
(1) Stiffnecked–contumacious, rebellious.
(2) Uncircumcised–unsacred, impure.
2. The crimes he charges upon them–
(1) Resistance to the Holy Ghost.
(2) An hereditary persecuting spirit.
(3) The betrayal and murder of the Son of God. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
The defence of Stephen
1. How does this speech happen to be here? It would be easy for the memory to carry a sentence or two; but who could record so long and highly-informed a speech? There was a young man listening with no friendly ear. His name was Saul. It is supposed that he related it to Luke. It is not a correct report. No man can report chain lightning. You may catch a little here and there, but the elements that lifted it up into historic importance, it was not in the power of memory to carry. You must not therefore hold Stephen responsible for this speech; they did not give him an opportunity of revising it. There is no statement here made that is not spiritually true, and yet there are a few sentences that may be challenged on some technical ground. Some persons imagine that they are inspired when they are only technical. They forget that you may not have a single text in support of what you are stating, and yet may have the whole Bible in defence of it. The Bible is not a text, it is a tone; it is not a piece of technical evidence, it is an inspiration.
2. The man who reported this speech to Luke made it the basis and the model of his own immortal apologies. Truly we sometimes borrow from unacknowledged sources, and are sometimes indebted to unknown influences for some of our best inspirations. That a man appointed with six others to serve tables should have become the first Christian martyr apologist, and should have given the model for the greatest speeches ever delivered by man, is surely a very miracle of Providence! How little Stephen knew what he was doing. Who really knows the issue and full effect of any action or speech? Life is not marked off in so many inches and done with; it may be the beginning of endless other acts nobler than itself.
I. It is fair criticism to infer the man from the speech. What kind of man was Stephen, judged by his speech? He was–
1. A man well versed in the Scriptures. From beginning to end his speech is scriptural; quotation follows quotation like shocks of thunder. Stephen was a man who had read his Bible; therein he separates himself from the most of modern people. I cannot call to mind one who ever read the Bible and disbelieved it. We all know many who abuse the Bible who have never read it. Not that such persons have not read parts of the Bible, which being perused without understanding are misquoted. Who really knows the Bible by heart? Some of us boast that we can recite five plays of Shakespeare. Who can recite the Book of Psalms? You call upon your little children to recite nonsense verses, which is well enough now and then; but which of your children can recite a chapter of St. John? Suppose some of us were called upon at a moments notice to recite six verses of Romans? Only the men who know the Bible should quote it. Only those who are steeped in the Scriptures should undertake to express any opinion about it. This is the law in all other criticism, and in common justice it ought to be the law in relation to the inspired revelation of God.
2. A man who took a broad and practical view of history. It is as difficult to find a man who has read history as to find a man who has read the Bible. A man does not know history because he can repeat all the kings of England from the Conquest. You do not learn history from the books. From the books you learn the facts; but having ascertained the facts, you must make history. The novelist is a better historian than the mere annalist, because history is an atmosphere. It is not only a panorama of passing incidents; it is a spirit in which such men as Stephen lived. He was a member of a great and noble household, a link in a far-stretching chain, an element in a great composition. Why should we live the shallow life of men who have no history behind them? We are encompassed by a great cloud of witnesses. We have no right to disennoble ourselves and commit an act of dismembership which separates us from the agony, the responsibility, and the destiny of the race. In Christ we have all to be one.
3. A man who was forced into action by his deep convictions. That is a word which, has somehow slipped out of our vocabulary, because it has slipped out of our life. Who now has any convictions? Life is now a game, a series of expedients, a succession of experiments. It is not an embodied and sacrificial conviction. In those days men spoke because they believed. They had no necessity to get up a speech, to arrange it in words that would offend and be recollected by nobody. Without faith we cannot have eloquence. It is not enough to have information. If you believe Christianity, you will not need an exhortation to speak it. Speech about Christianity, where it is known and loved, is the best necessity of this life. The fire burns, the heart muses, and the tongue speaks; hence in the fifty-first verse yon find that Stephen was a man whose information burned into religious earnestness. Having made his quotation he turned round as preachers dare not turn round now. It was an offensive speech, and it would be unpardonable now. Why? Because it was truth made pointed, and that no man will ever endure. The man who would listen all day with delight to an eloquent malediction upon the depravity of the whole world would leave the church if you told him he was a drunkard or a thief. We live in generalities. So preaching is now dying, or it is becoming a trick in, eloquence, or it is offering a grand opportunity for saying nothing about nothing. It used to turn the world upside down.
II. Let us turn from the man to the speech.
1. Its literary form. We need no book of rhetoric beyond this great apology. Called upon, he addresses his auditors with courtesy as Men, brethren, and fathers. He begins calmly, with the serenity of conscious power. He quotes from undisputed authority. Every step he takes is a step in advance. There is not in all his narration one circular movement. Having accumulated his facts and put them in the most vivid manner, he suddenly, like the out-bursting of a volcano, applies the subject, saying, Ye stiff-necked, etc. This is the law of argumentative progress. Begin courteously, and beg the confidence and respectful attention of your hearers; but your speech will be their responsibility. They will not be the same at the end of the speech a they were at the beginning. A preacher may begin as courteously as he pleases, but having shown what God is and has done, and wants to be done, his conclusion should be a judgment as well as a gospel.
2. Its probable source. How did Stephen know all about the case? Suppose that Stephen was the second disciple who, on the road to Emmaus, heard Christ expound in all Scripture the things concerning himself. What if Saul reported Stephen, and Stephen reported Christ, and so the great gospel goes on from man to man, from tongue to tongue, till the last man hears it, and his heart burns within him!
3. Its main purpose–to disclose the method of Divine revelation and providence. Let us see whether what is related here agrees with our own observation and experience.
(1) God has from the beginning made Himself known to individuals. Stephen relates the great names of history. Some names are as mountains on the landscape. We start our journeys from them, we reckon our distances by them, we measure our progress according to their height. God does not reveal Himself to crowds. It is not only in theology, but in science, politics, commerce, literature, family life, that God speaks to the individual and entrusts him with some great gospel or spiritual mystery. Why talk about election as if it were exclusively a religious word? How is it that one man in the family has all the sense? How is it that one man is a poet and another a mathematician? How is it that one boy can never be got to stay at home and his own brother can never be got to leave home? How is it that one man speaks out the word that expresses the inarticulate thought of a generation, though all other men would have been wise enough to discover it?
(2) God has constantly come along the line of surprise. Revelation has never been a commonplace. Wherever God has revealed Himself Me has surprised the person on whom the light has fallen. The power of surprise is one of the greatest powers at the disposal of any teacher. How to put the old as if it were the new! How to set fire to common sense so that it shall burn up into genius! How to reveal to a man his bigger and better self! How has God proceeded according to the historical narration of Stephen? To Abram he said, Get thee out from thy country and from thy kindred. We cannot conceive the shock of surprise with which these words would be received. Travelling then was not what travelling is now. No man could receive a call of that kind as a mere commonplace! Called to give up a reality in the hope of realising a dream! Josephs life was a surprise–a greater surprise to himself than to anybody. How was it that he always had the key of the gate? Why did men turn to him? How was it that he only could tell the meaning of the kings dream? Then pass on to Moses. A bush flamed at the mountain base, and a voice said to the wanderer, Stop! Nothing but fire can stop some men! There are those to whom the dew is a gospel, there are others who require the very fire that lights the eternal throne to stop them and rouse their full attention. God knows what kind of ministry you need, so He has set in His Church a thousand ministries. It is not for us to compare the one with the other, but to see in such a distribution of power Gods purpose to touch every creature in the whole world.
(3) God has all the time been over-ruling improbabilities and disasters. We should say that when God has called a man to service the road would be wide, clear of all obstructions, filled with sunshine, lined with flowers, that the man leaning on Gods arm will be accompanied by the singing of birds and of angels. Nothing of the kind is true to fact. Stephen recognises this in very distinct terms. God said that Abrams seed should sojourn in a strange land, and that they should bring them into bondage, and evil entreat them four hundred years! In the face of such an arrangement can there be an Almighty providence? Yes. And Joseph was sold into Egypt. God-forsaken we should say, looking at the outside only. And there were those who evilly entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children to the end they might not live. Moses himself was cast out. Stephen does not cover these things up or make less of them. Nay, he masses them into great black groups, and says–Still the great thought went on and on! There is the majesty of the Divine Providence. Its movement is not lost in pits, and caves, and wildernesses, and rivers, and seas. The disasters are many, the sufferings are severe, the disappointments are innumerable and unendurable; still the thought goes on. Judge nothing before the time. So it is with our own life.
Conclusion: Mark how exactly this whole history of Stephens corresponds with Christs method of revelation and providence.
1. Did not Christ reveal Himself to individuals? Did He not say to the Abram of His time, Follow Me?
2. Did He not also use the power of surprise? When was He ever received into any town as an ordinary visitor? Who did not wait for Him to speak and look, and act? Who was not impatient with all the multitude lest they should interrupt any sentence of this marvellous eloquence?
3. Did He not also take His Church through improbabilities, disasters, and dark places? Has not His Church been evil entreated? Have not our Christian fathers been cast out? Have we not also our heroes, and sufferers, and martyrs, and crowned ones? Was not Christ always master of the occasion? Without a place whereon to lay His head, He was still the Lord. We remember our disasters; but the Church is the Lambs Bride, and He will marry her at the altar of the universe! (J. Parker, D. D.)
St. Stephens defence
How was Stephens speech preserved? The notaries, shorthand writers, and clerks attendant upon a Roman court were accessible to the gifts of the richer Christians when they wished to obtain a correct narrative of a martyrs last trial. Secret Christians among the officials also effected something, and there were numerous other methods by which the Roman judicial records became the property of the Church. Probably St. Paul gave his disciple, St. Luke, report of what Stephen said on this occasion.
I. The defence of St. Stephen was a speech delivered by a Jew, and addressed to a Jewish audience. Orientals argued then, and argue still, not according to the rules of logic taught by Aristotle, nor by the methods of eloquence derived from the traditions of Cicero and Quinctilian, but by methods and rules essentially different. What would satisfy Westerns would seem to them utterly worthless, just as an argument which now seems pointless appeared to them absolutely conclusive. Parallels, analogies, parables, mystical interpretations were then favourite methods of argument. St. Stephen was accused of irreverence towards Moses, and hostility towards the temple, and towards all the Jewish institutions. He begins his address to the Sanhedrin at the earliest period of their national history, and shows how the chosen people had passed through many changes and developments without interfering with their essential identity. There was a chosen people before the customs introduced by Moses. There may therefore be a chosen people still when these customs cease, having fulfilled their purpose. He was accused also of speaking blasphemous words against the national sanctuary. His argument now takes a different turn, and runs thus: This building is now the centre of Jewish thoughts and affections. But it is a mere modern thing as compared with the original choice and promise of God. Even when it was built, and in all its original glory, its temporal character was clearly recognised by Isaiah (Isa 66:1-2). The same truth had been anticipated by Solomon (1Ki 8:27). Then there occurs a break in St. Stephens address. Possibly the Sadducean portion of his audience had got quite enough. Their countenances and gestures bespoke their horror of his doctrines. Isaiahs opinion carried no weight with them as contrasted with the institutions of Moses; and so, borne along by the force of his oratory, Stephen finished with that vigorous denunciation which led to his death (verses 51-53).
II. What a lesson Stephens speech has for the Church of every age! His forecast swept away at once all the privileges and profits connected with the religious position of Jerusalem, and thus destroyed the political prospects of the Jewish people. Men never listen patiently when their pockets are being touched, their dearest hopes annihilated. Take the political world alone. We.now look back and view with horror the deeds wrought in the name of authority, and in opposition to the principles of change and innovation. We read the stories of Alva, and the massacres in the Netherlands, the bloody deeds of the seventeenth century in England and all over Europe, the miseries and bloodshed of the American War of Independence, the fierce opposition with which the spirit of liberty has been resisted throughout this century; and our sympathies are altogether ranged on the side of the sufferers–the losers and defeated, it may have been, for the time, but the triumphant in the long run. The true student, however, of history, or of human nature, will not content himself with any one-sided view, and he will have Some sympathy to spare for those who adopted the stern measures: He will not judge them too harshly. They reverenced the past as the Jews of Jerusalem did, and reverence is a feeling that is right and blessed. The opponents of political change are sometimes denounced in the fiercest language, as if they were morally wicked. The late Dr. Arnold seems a grievous offender in this respect. No one can read his charming biography by Dean Stanley without recognising how intolerant he was towards his political opponents; how blind he was to those good motives which inspire the timorous, the ignorant, and the aged, when brought face to face with changes which appear to them thickly charged with the most dangerous results. Charity towards opponents is sadly needed in the political as well as in the religious world. And as it has been in politics, so has it been in religion. Men reverence the past, and that reverence easily glides into an idolatry, blind to its defects and hostile to any improvement. It is in religion too as in politics; a thousand other interests–money, office, expectations, memories of the loved and lost–are bound up with religious forms, and then when the prophet arises with his Divine message, as Stephen arose before the Sanhedrin, the ancient proverb is fulfilled, the corruption of the best becomes the worst, the good motives mingle with the evil, and are used by the poor human heart to justify the hardest, most unchristian, deeds done in defence of what men believe to be the cause of truth and righteousness.
III. The mistakes and variations which occur in Stephens speech. They are mistakes such as a speaker, filled with his subject and speaking to an excited and hostile audience, might naturally make; mistakes such as truthful speakers every day make in their ordinary efforts. (G. T. Sokes, D. D.)
Stephens testimony
1. Mark the perfect man. That object is worthy of regard anywhere; but here it is in a position peculiarly fitted to display its grandeur. Everything about the faith of Christians is interesting; but the trial of their faith is found unto praise, etc. (1Pe 1:7). The flame may live through the day, but it is by night that it is seen. Mark the perfect man, but choose the time for marking him–towards the close: the end of that man is peace.
2. Stephen stands before the Sanhedrin, not to be tried but to be condemned. When he distributed alms his face was pleasant; but when he stands before his murderers it is like the face of an angel. The sun is most beautiful at its setting, and if dark clouds cluster round they serve to receive and reflect his light, and so to increase the loveliness of the departing moment.
2. The specific charge against Stephen was that he spoke blasphemous words, etc; but the first portion of his speech must have gone far to refute it, for in the spirit of a devout believer he traces the course of Hebrew history. This is no reviler of the temple and the law, a renegade Jew who abjures Moses. His elegant apologetic essay by itself would have pleased his judges, as the story of the ewe lamb did the guilty king, and perhaps they may have begun to think this man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
4. Stephen, I suppose, had a well-defined plan. He wished to win their attention and soften their hearts. When at last he saw the gates open he made a sudden rush, in the hope of taking the city by assault, and leading its defenders captive to Christ. And the plan was in the first instance successful. The Word proved quick and powerful. The sword ran into their joints and marrow. The immediate object is gained: there is conviction–they were cut to the heart. But for those who try to win souls, as for those who try to win fortunes, there is many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip. Conversion does not always follow conviction. When such a home thrust takes effect a great fire of anger is kindled which will either turn inward and consume sin, or outward to persecute the preacher. In this case anger went the wrong way.
5. As the fury of the persecutors increased, so did the ecstasy of the martyr. The blast of their wrath against him, like the wind against a kite, carried him higher toward heaven. He saw the glory of God and Jesus. The two lie close together, to Stephen they blended in one. If the glory of God were to appear without Jesus the spirit would fail. The Lamb is the light of heaven. An uproar ensued. The peace and triumph of the martyrs has always had an effect upon the persecutors. The drums were beaten to drown the last words of the Scottish covenanters. Argyles sleep on the night before his execution made his enemies blood run cold. (W. Arnot, D. D.)
The God of Glory.—
Stephens answers to the charge of blasphemy against God
There was good reason for commencing his speech in the name of God. He thus in opposition to the current slander that he blasphemed God not only testifies his deep respect for God, and gives to Him the honour which is His due; but he has a positive reason for asserting the glory of God. Here, as in the subsequent part of his speech, he keeps in view the unlimited greatness, authority and sovereignty of God, according to which God is bound to nothing and no one, and can manifest Himself to whom, and how, and when He pleases. The expression in connection with appeared brings to their remembrance the sublime and elevating glory in which the self-manifestations of God were wont to take place. (G. V. Lechler, D. D.)
Appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia.—
The earliest appearance of God to Abraham
Of this particular appearance there is no account in Gen 11:31. But a Divine command, which had already been given at that time, is implied in Gen 15:7, and reference is made to this in Jos 24:2-3; Neh 9:7; Jdt 5:7-9. Philo and Josephus agree in representing the Patriarch as having been called twice, first from his kindred and country in Ur, secondly from his fathers house in Haran, Terah having accompanied him in the former migration, and being dead before the second. This is one of several instances in which New Testament supplies facts supplementary to Old Testament–e.g., the prophecy of Enoch (Jud 1:14); the names of the Egyptian magicians (2Ti 3:8); the hope that sustained Abraham in offering Isaac (Heb 11:19); the acknowledgment of Moses (Heb 12:21); the motive which strengthened him to leave the court of Pharaoh (Heb 11:24), and Egypt (Heb 11:27); and the prayer of Elijah (Jam 5:17). (Bp. Jacobsen.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER VII.
Stephen, being permitted to answer for himself relative to the
charge of blasphemy brought against him by his accusers, gives
a circumstantial relation of the call of Abraham, when he dwelt
in Mesopotamia, in Charran, c., 1-8.
The history of Jacob and Joseph, 9-17.
The persecution of their fathers in Egypt, 18, 19.
The history of Moses and his acts till the exodus from Egypt,
20-37.
The rebellion and idolatry of the Israelites in the wilderness,
38-43.
The erection of the tabernacle of witness, which continued till
the time of David, 44-46.
Of the temple built by Solomon for that God who cannot be
confined to temples built by hands, 47-50.
Being probably interrupted in the prosecution of his discourse,
he urges home the charge of rebellion against God, persecution
of his prophets, the murder of Christ, and neglect of their own
law against them, 51-53.
They are filled with indignation, and proceed to violence, 54.
He sees the glory of God, and Christ at the right hand of the
Father and declares the glorious vision, 55, 56.
They rush upon him, drag him out of the city, and stone him,
57, 58.
He involves the Lord Jesus, prays for his murderers, and
expires, 59, 60.
NOTES ON CHAP. VII.
Verse 1. Are these things so?] Hast thou predicted the destruction of the temple? And hast thou said that Jesus of Nazareth shall change our customs, abolish our religious rites and temple service? Hast thou spoken these blasphemous things against Moses, and against God? Here was some colour of justice; for Stephen was permitted to defend himself. And, in order to do this he thought it best to enter into a detail of their history from the commencement of their nation; and thus show how kindly God had dealt with them, and how ungraciously they and their fathers had requited Him. And all this naturally led him to the conclusion, that God could no longer bear with a people the cup of whose iniquity had been long overflowing; and therefore they might expect to find wrath, without mixture of mercy.
But how could St. Luke get all this circumstantial account? 1. He might have been present, and heard the whole; or, more probably, he had the account from St. Paul, whose companion he was, and who was certainly present when St. Stephen was judged and stoned, for he was consenting to his death, and kept the clothes of them who stoned him. See Ac 7:58; Ac 8:1; Ac 22:20.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Then said the high priest; who was resolved to condemn any, right or wrong, that should profess Christ, as appears Joh 9:22.
Are these things so? That he might seem just, he gives him a kind of liberty to answer for himself; not to defend his doctrine, but; to know out of his own mouth whether he preached it, or not.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Then said the high priest,…. The Ethiopic version adds, “to him”; that is, to Stephen; for to him he addressed himself: or he “asked him”, as the Syriac version renders it; he put the following question to him:
are these things so? is it true what they say, that thou hast spoken blasphemous words against the temple, and the law, and hast said that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy the one, and change the other? what hast thou to say for thyself, and in thine own defence? this high priest was either Annas, or rather Caiaphas;
[See comments on Ac 4:6].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Stephen’s Address. |
| |
1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so? 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, 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 Chaldans, and dwelt in Charran: 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 favour 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 Chanaan, 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 Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.
Stephen is now at the bar before the great council of the nation, indicted for blasphemy: what the witnesses swore against him we had an account of in the foregoing chapter, that he spoke blasphemous words against Moses and God; for he spoke against this holy place and the law. Now here,
I. The high priest calls upon him to answer for himself, v. 1. He was president, and, as such, the mouth of the court, and therefore he saith, “You, the prisoner at the bar, you hear what is sworn against you; what do you say to it? Are these things so? Have you ever spoken any words to this purport? If you have, will you recant them, or will you stand to them? Guilty or not guilty?” This carried a show of fairness, and yet seems to have been spoken with an air of haughtiness; and thus far he seems to have prejudged the cause, that, if it were so, that he had spoken such and such words, he shall certainly be adjudged a blasphemer, whatever he may offer in justification or explanation of them.
II. He begins his defence, and it is long; but it should seem by his breaking off abruptly, just when he came to the main point (v. 50), that it would have been much longer if his enemies would have given him leave to say all he had to say. In general we may observe,
1. That in this discourse he appears to be a man ready and mighty in the scriptures, and thereby thoroughly furnished for every good word and work. He can relate scripture stories, and such as were very pertinent to his purpose, off-hand without looking in his Bible. He was filled with the Holy Ghost, not so much to reveal to him new things, or open to him the secret counsels and decrees of God concerning the Jewish nation, with them to convict these gainsayers; no, but to bring to his remembrance the scriptures of the Old Testament, and to teach him how to make use of them for their conviction. Those that are full of the Holy Ghost will be full of the scripture, as Stephen was.
2. That he quotes the scriptures according to the Septuagint translation, by which it appears he was one of the Hellenist Jews, who used that version in their synagogues. His following this, occasions divers variations from the Hebrew original in this discourse, which the judges of the court did not correct, because they knew how he was led into them; nor is it any derogation to the authority of that Spirit by which he spoke, for the variations are not material. We have a maxim, Apices juris non sunt jura–Mere points of law are not law itself. These verses carry on this his compendium of church history to the end of the book of Genesis. Observe,
(1.) His preface: Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. He gives them, though not flattering titles, yet civil and respectful ones, signifying his expectation of fair treatment with them; from men he hopes to be treated with humanity, and he hopes that brethren and fathers will use him in a fatherly brotherly way. They are ready to look upon him as an apostate from the Jewish church, and an enemy to them. But, to make way for their conviction to the contrary, he addresses himself to them as men, brethren, and fathers, resolving to look on himself as one of them, though they would not so look on him. He craves their attention: Hearken; though he was about to tell them what they already knew, yet he begs them to hearken to it, because, though they knew it all, yet they would not without a very close application of mind know how to apply it to the case before them.
(2.) His entrance upon the discourse, which (whatever it may seem to those that read it carelessly) is far from being a long ramble only to amuse the hearers, and give them a diversion by telling them an old story. No; it is all pertinent and ad rem–to the purpose, to show them that God had no this heart so much upon that holy place and the law as they had; but, as he had a church in the world many ages before that holy place was founded and the ceremonial law given, so he would have when they should both have had their period.
[1.] He begins with the call of Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, by which he was set apart for God to be the trustee of the promise, and the father of the Old-Testament church. This we had an account of (Gen. xii. 1, c.), and it is referred to, Neh 9:7Neh 9:8. His native country was an idolatrous country, it was Mesopotamia, (v. 2), the land of the Chaldeans (v. 4); thence God brought him at two removes, not too far at once, dealing tenderly with him; he first brought him out of the land of the Chaldeans to Charran, or Haran, a place midway between that and Canaan (Gen. xi. 31), and thence five years after, when his father was dead, he removed him into the land of Canaan, wherein you now dwell. It should seem, the first time that God spoke to Abraham, he appeared in some visible display of the divine presence, as the God of glory (v. 2), to settle a correspondence with him: and then afterwards he kept up that correspondence, and spoke to him from time to time as there was occasion, without repeating his visible appearances as the God of glory.
First, From this call of Abraham we may observe, 1. That in all our ways we must acknowledge God, and attend the directions of his providence, as of the pillar of cloud and fire. It is not said, Abraham removed, but, God removed him into this land wherein you now dwell, and he did but follow his Leader. 2. Those whom God takes into covenant with himself he distinguishes from the children of this world; they are effectually called out of the state, out of the land, of their nativity; they must sit loose to the world, and live above it and every thing in it, even that in it which is most dear to them, and must trust God to make it up to them in another and better country, that is, the heavenly, which he will show them. God’s chosen must follow him with an implicit faith and obedience.
Secondly, But let us see what this is to Stephen’s case. 1. They had charged him as a blasphemer of God, and an apostate from the church; therefore he shows that he is a son of Abraham, and values himself upon his being able to say, Our father Abraham, and that he is a faithful worshipper of the God of Abraham, whom therefore he here calls the God of glory. He also shows that he owns divine revelation, and that particularly by which the Jewish church was founded and incorporated. 2. They were proud of their being circumcised; and therefore he shows that Abraham was taken under God’s guidance, and into communion with him, before he was circumcised, for that was not till v. 8. With this argument Paul proves that Abraham was justified by faith, because he was justified when he was in uncircumcision: and so here. 3. They had a mighty jealousy for this holy place, which may be meant of the whole land of Canaan; for it was called the holy land, Immanuel’s land; and the destruction of the holy house inferred that of the holy land. “Now,” says Stephen, “you need not be so proud of it; for,” (1.) “You came originally out of Ur of the Chaldees, where your fathers served other gods (Josh. xxiv. 2), and you were not the first planters of this country. Look therefore unto the rock whence you were hewn, and the holy of the pit out of which you were digged;” that is, as it follows there, “look unto Abraham your father, for I called him alone (Isa 51:1; Isa 51:2)– think of the meanness of your beginnings, and how you are entirely indebted to divine grace, and then you will see boasting to be for ever excluded. It was God that raised up the righteous man from the east, and called him to his foot. Isa. xli. 2. But, if his seed degenerate, let them know that God can destroy this holy place, and raise up to himself another people, for he is not a debtor to them.” (2.) “God appeared in his glory to Abraham a great way off in Mesopotamia, before he came near Canaan, nay, before he dwelt in Charran; so that you must not think God’s visits are confined to this land; no; he that brought the seed of the church from a country so far east can, if he pleases, carry the fruit of it to another country as far west.” (3.) “God made no haste to bring him into this land, but let him linger some years by the way, which shows that God has not his heart so much upon this land as you have yours, neither is his honour, nor the happiness of his people, bound up in it. It is therefore neither blasphemy nor treason to say, It shall be destroyed,”
[2.] The unsettled state of Abraham and his seed for many ages after he was called out of Ur of the Chaldees. God did indeed promise that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, v. 5. But, First, As yet he had no child, nor any by Sarah for many years after. Secondly, He himself was but a stranger and a sojourner in that land, and God gave him no inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on; but there he was as in a strange country, where he was always upon the remove, and could call nothing his own. Thirdly, His posterity did not come to the possession of it for a long time: After four hundred years they shall come and serve me in this place, and not till then, v. 7. Nay, Fourthly, They must undergo a great deal of hardship and difficulty before they shall be put into the possession of that land: they shall be brought into bondage, and ill treated in a strange land: and this, not as the punishment of any particular sin, as their wandering in the wilderness was, for we never find any such account given of their bondage in Egypt; but so God had appointed, and it must be. And at the end of four hundred years, reckoning from the birth of Isaac, that nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, saith God. Now this teaches us, 1. That known unto God are all his works beforehand. When Abraham had neither inheritance nor heir, yet he was told he should have both, the one a land of promise, and the other a child of promise; and therefore both had, and received, by faith. 2. That God’s promises, though they are slow, are sure in the operation of them; they will be fulfilled in the season of them, though perhaps not so soon as we expect. 3. That though the people of God may be in distress and trouble for a time, yet God will at length both rescue them and reckon with those that do oppress them; for, verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth.
But let us see how this serves Stephen’s purpose. 1. The Jewish nation, for the honour of which they were so jealous, was very inconsiderable in its beginnings; as their common father Abraham was fetched out of obscurity in Ur of the Chaldees, so their tribes, and the heads of them, were fetched out of servitude in Egypt, when they were the fewest of all people, Deut. vii. 7. And what need is there of so much ado, as if their ruin, when they bring it upon themselves by sin, must be the ruin of the world, and of all God’s interests in it? No; he that brought them out of Egypt can bring them into it again, as he threatened (Deut. xxviii. 68), and yet be no loser, while he can out of stones raise up children unto Abraham. 2. The slow steps by which the promise made to Abraham advanced towards the performance, and the many seeming contradictions here taken notice of, plainly show that it had a spiritual meaning, and that the land principally intended to be conveyed and secured by it was the better country, that is, the heavenly; as the apostle shows from this very argument that the patriarchs sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, thence inferring that they looked for a city that had foundations,Heb 11:9; Heb 11:10. It was therefore no blasphemy to say, Jesus shall destroy this place, when at the same time we say, “He shall lead us to the heavenly Canaan, and put us in possession of that, of which the earthly Canaan was but a type and figure.”
[3.] The building up of the family of Abraham, with the entail of divine grace upon it, and the disposals of divine Providence concerning it, which take up the rest of the book of Genesis.
First, God engaged to be a God to Abraham and his seed; and, in token of this, appointed that he and his male seed should be circumcised, Gen 17:9; Gen 17:10. He gave him the covenant of circumcision, that is, the covenant of which circumcision was the seal; and accordingly, when Abraham had a son born, he circumcised him the eighth day (v. 8), by which he was both bound by the divine law and interested in the divine promise; for circumcision had reference to both, being a seal of the covenant both on God’s part–I will be to thee a God all-sufficient, and on man’s part–Walk before me, and be thou perfect. And then when effectual care was thus taken for the securing of Abraham’s seed, to be a seed to serve the Lord, they began to multiply: Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs, or roots of the respective tribes.
Secondly, Joseph, the darling and blessing of his father’s house, was abused by his brethren; they envied him because of his dreams, and sold him into Egypt. Thus early did the children of Israel begin to grudge those among them that were eminent and outshone others, of which their enmity to Christ, who, like Joseph, was a Nazarite among his brethren, was a great instance.
Thirdly, God owned Joseph in his troubles, and was with him (Gen 39:2; Gen 39:21), by the influence of his Spirit, both on his mind, giving him comfort, and on the minds of those he was concerned with, giving him favour in their eyes. And thus at length he delivered him out of his afflictions, and Pharaoh made him the second man in the kingdom, Ps. cv. 20-22. And thus he not only arrived at great preferment among the Egyptians, but became the shepherd and stone of Israel, Gen. xlix. 24.
Fourthly, Jacob was compelled to go down into Egypt, by a famine which forced him out of Canaan, a dearth (which was a great affliction), to that degree that our fathers found no sustenance in Canaan, v. 11. That fruitful land was turned into barrenness. But, hearing that there was corn in Egypt (treasured up by the wisdom of his own son), he sent out our fathers first to fetch corn, v. 12. And the second time that they went, Joseph, who at first made himself strange to them, made himself known to them, and it was notified to Pharaoh that they were Joseph’s kindred and had a dependence upon him (v. 13), whereupon, with Pharaoh’s leave, Joseph sent for his father Jacob to him into Egypt, with all his kindred and family, to the number of seventy-five souls, to be subsisted there, v. 13. In Genesis they are said to be seventy souls, Gen. xlvi. 27. But the Septuagint there makes them seventy-five, and Stephen or Luke follows that version, as Luke iii. 36, where Cainan is inserted, which is not in the Hebrew text, but in the Septuagint. Some, by excluding Joseph and his sons, who were in Egypt before (which reduces the number to sixty-four), and adding the sons of the eleven patriarch, make the number seventy-five.
Fifthly, Jacob and his sons died in Egypt (v. 15), but were carried over to be buried in Canaan, v. 16. A very considerable difficulty occurs here: it is said, They were carried over into Sychem, whereas Jacob was buried not in Sychem, but near Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, where Abraham and Isaac were buried, Gen. l. 13. Joseph’s bones indeed were buried in Sychem (Josh. xxiv. 32), and it seems by this (though it is not mentioned in the story) that the bones of all the other patriarchs were carried with his, each of them giving the same commandment concerning them that he had done; and of them this must be understood, not of Jacob himself. But then the sepulchre in Sychem was bought by Jacob (Gen. xxxiii. 19), and by this it is described, Josh. xxiv. 32. How then is it here said to be bought by Abraham? Dr. Whitby’s solution of this is very sufficient. He supplies it thus: Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers; and (our fathers) were carried over into Sychem; and he, that is, Jacob, was laid in the sepulchre that Abraham brought for a sum of money, Gen. xxiii. 16. (Or, they were laid there, that is, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.) And they, namely, the other patriarchs, were buried in the sepulchre bought of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.
Let us now see what this is to Stephen’s purpose. 1. He still reminds them of the mean beginning of the Jewish nation, as a check to their priding themselves in the glories of that nation; and that it was by a miracle of mercy that they were raised up out of nothing to what they were, from so small a number to be so great a nation; but, if they answer not the intention of their being so raised, they can expect no other than to be destroyed. The prophets frequently put them in mind of the bringing of them out of Egypt, as a aggravation of their contempt of the law of God, and here it is urged upon them as an aggravation of their contempt of the gospel of Christ. 2. He reminds them likewise of the wickedness of those that were the patriarchs of their tribes, in envying their brother Joseph, and selling him into Egypt; and the same spirit was still working in them towards Christ and his ministers. 3. Their holy land, which they doted so much upon, their fathers were long kept out of the possession of, and met with dearth and great affliction in it; and therefore let them not think it strange if, after it has been so long polluted with sin, it be at length destroyed. 4. The faith of the patriarchs in desiring to be buried in the land of Canaan plainly showed that they had an eye to the heavenly country, to which it was the design of this Jesus to lead them.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Are these things so? ( ). On this use of in a direct question see on 1:6. Literally “Do these things hold thus?” A formal question by the high priest like our “Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?” (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen’s face. Two charges had been made against Stephen (1) speaking against the holy temple, (2) changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. So he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God’s dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Ac 13:16ff.) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen’s predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge “by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple” (Page). Then he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse 51) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter’s mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. “So Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus” (Furneaux).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Then said the high – priest. “The glorified countenance of Stephen has caused a pause of surprise and admiration, which the high – priest interrupts by calling upon the accused for his defense” (Gloag).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then said the High Priest,” (eipen de ho archereus) “Then the high priest said,” or responded, after he had listened to the malicious charges brought against Stephen, by the hired or suborned false witnesses, Act 6:11-14. The presiding (questioning) high priest was Annas, Act 4:6.
2) “Are these things so?” (ei tauta houtos echei) “Are these charges factual, correct, or substantially accurate?” Stephen was thus confronted before the council and the high priest with a jury of stacked, adversary attitude people, and called upon to answer charges that bordered on anarchy and sedition against the law of Moses, and against the popular, established Jewish order of worship and service of the day.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. There appeareth as yet some color of equity in the high priest and in the council; and yet, notwithstanding, there is a most unjust prejudice in his words; for he asketh him not what cause he had to teach thus, neither doth he admit him unto the defense of right, (which was, notwithstanding, the chief;) but he demanded precisely whether Stephen uttered these words, whatsoever they were; as the Papists at this day will not demand what doctrine it is, and whether it can be proved out of the Scriptures; but they inquire (364) whether any man durst mutter against their superstitions, that so soon as he is convict, they may forthwith burn (365) him. Furthermore, Stephen’s answer may seem at the first blush absurd and foolish. He beginneth first at the very first beginning; afterwards he maketh a long narration, wherein there is no mention made, in a manner, of the matter in hand; and there can be no greater fault than to utter many words which are nothing appertinent unto the matter; (366) but whosoever shall thoroughly consider this long speech, he shall find nothing therein which is superfluous; and shall full well perceive that Stephen speaketh very ap-pertinently, (367) as the matter requireth. He was accused as an apostate (or revolt,) which did attempt the overthrow of religion and the worship of God; therefore, he beateth in (368) this diligently, that he retaineth that God which the fathers have always worshipped, so that he turneth away the crime of wicked backsliding; (369) and declareth that his enemies were pricked forward with nothing less than with the zeal of the law, for they bear a show that they were wholly determined (370) to increase the glory of God; therefore, he wringeth from them this false boasting, and because they had the fathers always in their mouths, because they were puffed up with the glory of their nation, Stephen declareth also that they have no cause to be proud of this, but rather that the corruptions of the fathers were so great and so many, that they ought to be ashamed and humbled.
As concerning the principal state of the cause, because the question was concerning the temple and the ceremonies, he affirmeth plainly that their fathers were elected of God to be a peculiar people before there was any temple, and before Moses was born; and to this end tendeth that exordium or beginning which is so far fet, (fetched.) Secondly, he telleth them that all external rites which God gave by the hand of Moses were fashioned according to the heavenly pattern.
Whereupon it followeth, that the ceremonial law is referred unto another end, and that those deal foolishly and disorderly who omit the truth, and stay only in the signs. If the readers shall refer the whole oration of Stephen unto these points, they shall find nothing therein which agreeth not very well with the cause, as I shall declare again briefly in the end; nevertheless, that scope of the whole oration shall not hinder but that we may discuss all things briefly which are worth the noting.
(364) “ Sed tanum hoc quaerint,” but the only thing they ask is.
(365) “ Vulcano devoveant,” devote him to Vulcan, (to the flames.)
(366) “ Et extra rem vagari,” and wander from the subject.
(367) “ Apposito,” appositely.
(368) “ Sedulo igitur inculcat,” he therefore strenuously maintains.
(369) “ Ita impiae defectiones cremen avertit,” he thus repels the charge of impious defection or revolt.
(370) “ Simulabant enim nihil sibi esse propositum quam,” for they pretended that their only object was.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE HOLY SPIRITS ORDINATION
Act 6:1 to Act 7:60.
THE original intention of the present program was to make the Book of Acts a basis of our teaching on the subject of missionsan intention born of the conviction that the Holy Spirits model for missions at home and abroad could be found in that volume. Our program has in its progress reached the sixth chapter in this study.
The opening sentence of chapter 6 is the sequel to the closing sentence of chapter 5. Men do not teach and preach Jesus Christ in vain. God never forgets His promiseAs the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: so shall My Word be that goeth forth (Isa 55:10-11). The very language, to teach and to preach Jesus Christ, fruits in the speech,
The number of the disciples was multiplied. Church growth without complications is an unusual thing, and probably an impossible one. It was in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied that there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews. The record is clear! Factions in the body of Christ are not innovations. They existed from the first, and the inspired pen made note of them. The Head of the Church had said, There is nothing secret that shall not be made known. The inspired Book does not hesitate to tell the story of ecclesiastical contentions. In the language of Joseph Parker, The Church is not a secret institution. It was never meant to be a concealed force in society, or to have its inner life and inner mechanism upon which outsiders were not allowed to gaze. Christianity abhors all official secrecy. It is a religion which lives in the daylight. Its registers are not hidden away in iron safes; its writing is written as with a pencil of the sun. Its conduct, like that of the Master, is not in a corner. It has nothing to conceal. Men may be disappointed to have division in the body revealed thus early in its history, but wisdom will not condemn, it will consider rather; and in its consideration it will have to give attention to
THE UTILITY OF DIVISION
Let no man imagine that debate is always vicious, that contention is always contemptible, that division is always and everywhere the devils device. It depends entirely on who engages in the debate; it depends wholly upon what is the occasion of the contention, and why men divide.
This division was made the occasion of counsel.
Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God and serve tables (Act 6:2).
Here again is the beginning of that form of church government which develops itself to some fulness in the Book of the Acts. It seems to have been congregational, but congregational under proper leadership. That the twelve were advisers there seems to be no doubt. Leadership in church government is even more essential than it is in the government o states.
And yet the church was never meant to be an autocracy. The twelve were not dictators; they were advisors. The multitude of the disciples, or the church, was not to be ignored. In a multitude of counsellors, there is wisdom, provided the thought of the crowd is properly directed. Few men are leaders to the manor born. Most men are fair judges of what is right when once they have had questions and problems properly stated to them. We are fully persuaded that a pure congregational church government is little better than ecclesiastical anarchy, and we are equally certain that an autocratic church government is far more offensive to God than the doctrine of the Divine right of kings. In church and state alike, leadership counselled, corrected, and if need be, chastened by the multitude, is both the Divine pleasure and the Divine plan. Beyond all doubt the Presbytery counselled, and the people voted in the early church.
The conception of apostolic service was itself ennobled by the trust which the Apostles reposed in the people. The plea for organic unity in the church on the part of certain leaders finds more eloquent exponents among the uninspired than among the Divinely anointed. Rome would like an organic unity, which, in its judgment, would be the clothing of all the professed church with the papal name, and the expression of its life in papal forms and ceremonies. The Episcopalians have likewise pled for unity, but are willing to have it come only through Episcopalian confirmation and ordination. The Interchurch made unity their slogan, but the ideal was unity of endeavor that despised alike doctrine and life!
In this original church, differences of opinion not only took place, but passed without serious hindrances. In fact, they became the signs of life. In the language of A. J. F. Behrens, It is well to remember that dead men do not quarrel, and that a debating society is better than a burial ground. Anything that calls a church into a prayerful counsel, and any church that can proceed in counsel without bitterness of spirit, exhibits one of the early and important lessons of church life, namely, the utility of division. Beyond all debate, hours of great spiritual uplift often succeed solemn counsels, consequent upon some subject of honest difference. In fact, any compulsion of opinion is churchly, not Christian; papistic, not spiritual!
This division resulted in the creation of the diaconate.
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word.
And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch;
Whom they set before the Apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them (Act 6:3-6).
They are wise men who turn a conflict to good account, and certainly few disturbances in the Body of Christ ever resulted more blessedly than this debate over the care of the Jewish and Grecian widows. Notwithstanding all the proverbs about a horned deacon; notwithstanding Mr. Spurgeons statement, Resist the devil and he will flee from you; resist a deacon, and he will fly at youthe fact remains that, second to the ministry itself, the diaconate has played the most conspicuous part in the Church of God. In this Scripture, a principle of divinest wisdom is exploited, namely, that government in the Church of God is not so much a matter of personal accomplishment as of personal character; not so much a question of financial and social standing as it is a question of spiritual life. Of all the folly of which churches have been guilty, none is greater nor, in its ultimate reach, more ruinous than the notion that only leading people, speaking financially and socially, can direct the church. In my somewhat extensive travels and observation, I find more churches stranded, de-spiritualized and dying, because turned over to the domination of great financiers and smooth social autocrats, than from all other sources combined. I do not know one eminently successful church on the American continent whose official Board is not made up much after the manner of this Boardmen full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.
In electing officials, one may not wholly despise intellectual acumen, nor disregard personal and professional accomplishment, but the supreme consideration is this, Is he a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost? It is a grave question whether godless men ever well conducted the affairs of state. It is an absolute certainty that even non-spiritual men will never well conduct the affairs of the church. They cannot acceptably light a lamp, open a door, or preach the Gospel. The lamp may be so lighted as to discredit the house of God; the door may be so opened as to affront the Holy Spirit; a visitor may be so received as to send him away from the sanctuary forever. The very breath of the church should be that of the Holy Ghost, and the moment men set foot across the threshold of the same, they should know themselves not only in the sanctuary, but should be compelled to admit the spiritual atmosphere of the same. That is impossible where officials are not men full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.
This division was cured and converts were multiplied.
And the Word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith (Act 6:7).
We have heard of churches boasting that they had no dissensions among them, and yet they only illustrated a fact that cemeteries are without conflict. We have known others to be torn by dissension and yet the house was crowded and converts to Christ were constant. The explanation was in the fact that in the first instance the lack of spiritual life left the devil at rest concerning the whole assembly; and in the second, the expression of it rendered the devil busy to derange, and if possible, to destroy! The people are never deceived. By some sort of intuition they go where God is at work, and if the entire membership of a church so far yields itself to the Spirit as to amicably settle honest difficulties, the public is still more impressed, and to that public they can make a still more mighty appeal.
In my first pastorate, three of my church officials had refused for full three years to speak to one another. A committee was appointed to investigate the cause of the difficulty, and either adjust it or bring in a recommendation for exclusion. The night of trial arrived. The three officials were in their places, silent, glum, determined. Much prayer was had before the committees presentation. The Spirit wrought! Hearts softened! At last one man arose and in penitence confessed his fault. Another followed, and yet a third. Men who had passed in the streets with a scowl, now locked in mutual embrace. For six months I had preached my heart out, without a convert. Next Sunday night the house was packed to the point where I was left but standing room in the pulpit, and a multitude of converts were made, and for two full years (the rest of my pastorate in that place) the inpour to the church was incessant. A new house was erected; from half time service the church went to full time; from no gifts to large gifts, and in a lifetime ministry I have known no delights to exceed the blessed winters and summers brought about by a reconciliation of brethren.
There was a logical occasion for Christs prayer for His disciples, that they all may be one, * * that the world may believe.
I am fully persuaded that if at this moment the divisions in Protestantism could be healed, a practical unanimity of opinion, and still more, an agreement of spirit would so occur as to exalt the Christ and Cross, the world would instantly witness a revival, and converts would be multiplied by the thousands if not millions.
But we pass now to a second theme, the
FUTILITY OF OPPOSITION
And the Word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the Law:
For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel (Act 6:7-15).
Stephen, the natural leader in this diaconate, is opposed. The report of the opposition is fairly full and it involves several suggestions.
First, opposition is commonly excited by some degree of success. Public opinion is a poor judge of spiritual realities! It will universally praise the man who gets along in the prophets office without opposition. It seems to have a notion, as one has said, that when God has called a man to service, the road will be wide, clear of all obstacles, filled with sunshine, lined with flowers, and the man leaning on Gods arm will be accompanied by the singing of birds, if not the strains of angels. But nothing of the kind is true to fact. It was not that way with Abraham; it was not that way with Isaac and Jacob, nor with Joseph, nor Moses, Joshua, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, nor Daniel. It was not that way with New Testament Apostles. As a rule, thorns were in their paths, opponents multiplied, scorpions stung, scorners hissed. It was not that way with Christ, the one Man who came to do Gods will. The Cross blocked His path and it terminated in an ignoble death. The path to spiritual success is not smooth, paved, or padded. The feet that walk there will find stones and thorns.
The great Rufus Choate heard some one remark, It is very wonderful how many great successes come of accident. Instantly he hotly answered, Nonsense! You might as well expect to drop the Greek alphabet and pick up the Iliad.
Success commonly spells ability and generally excites jealousy, hatred, opposition. There may have been some foolish enough to suppose that Stephen was the least favored of all the deacons because he was the first to strike a snag. On the contrary, that is only an evidence of his aggressiveness, a result of his religious outreach, a consequence of his conviction of duty and courageous discharge of the same.
The question of life is not the question of how to escape opponents, but rather of how to render Godgiven tasks and advance the cause of Christ.
Opposition often combines very curious elements.
Here the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia united against him. It is a curious collection. It is doubtful if they agreed on ought else. Such is life! The Roman and the Jew hated each the other. The Sadduccee and the Pharisee were in eternal conflict, but when Christ came they were fused into a fraternity of opposition and they all united their voices in crying, Crucify Him! and joined their hands in accomplishing that devils deed. Germany once boasted itself the land of faith; Turkey has forever been the unspeakable Mohammedan. The Christian and Mohammedan have nothing in common, and yet in the war of 1914-1918 they locked arms, became boon companions in battle, and the Christianity of Germany was at such low ebb by reason of rationalism that Mohammedan fraternity was no offense whatever.
It is doubtful if any true prophet of God ever faithfully proclaimed a full Gospel without combining against himself social autocrats and social outcasts, financial barons and bankrupt bums, spiritual derelicts and devils dupes.
There is a statement, Tell me with whom thou dost company, and I will tell thee who thou art. It can be paraphrased in reverse. Tell me who your opponents are, and I will be able to pass upon the soundness of your preaching.
Opposition is sometimes best answered by silence. And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel (Act 6:15).
It is full of suggestions of silencesweet, complacent, competent silence. Silence is golden. There are cases in court where the defendant had best not speak a word. His enemies will witness for him. The very falsity of their testimony will turn the tide to his account and defend him more than words. There is a story of a sculptor who, when he had finished the statue of George Peabody, and it was unveiled in London, was asked to make an address. He laid his hand upon the magnificent product of his art, and said, That is my speech!
You can strive to keep honorable office and official honors for ordained men only, but he who can point his finger toward a multitude of true, genuine converts, brought to God by the Gospel at his lips, need never make a self-defense. That is his speech, and that is the proof of his Divine ordination.
But let us pass to our next point,
THE VIRILITY OF INSPIRATION
Then said the high priest, Are these things so? The question effected the model sermon of the New Testament Scriptures.
This mans speech seems to have been Spirit-inspired. Read it! Even the reporters abbreviation could not strip it of its strength. It is splendid, massive, cumulative, conquering. Mr. Whittier once related how certain Quaker brethren came together, and after solemn consideration, passed a resolution to the effect, It is the sense of this meeting that George C______ be advised to remain silent until such time as the Lord shall speak through him. Evidently that is what Stephen did. How many speeches are born before their time! One can begin to understand the injunction of Christ, Tarry in Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high. * * Wait, I say, for the promise from the Father.
One sermon, preached by a layman, a non-ordained man, Spirit-inspired, will live longer, accomplish more, reach farther, more profoundly effect the Church of God, than a dozen thought out at the professional mans will, voiced by the professional mans judgment, expressing the professional wisdomWhen He is come, He will guide you into all truth. What failure when we run before Him, proceed without Him, speak when we have nothing of His inspiration!
This laymans appeal was wholly to inspired Scripture. The entire sermon is one succession of quotations. It is a remarkable condensation of Scriptural facts. They are welded together and made indeed a thunderbolt of power. He hurled them with dexterous hand. He smote the very men who opposed him by copious quotations from their own synagogue Scriptures. He forced upon them a dilemma. Choose you this day between your traditions and the inspired truth; your prejudices and the Divine appeal It is doubtful if any of the reformers in early centuries, middle ages or modern times have ever needed to adopt a new method. Stephen, the deacon, set an example for them all, expressed forever the standing ground of orthodoxy, raised a flag under which the faithful will continue their fight until the end of time.
When Martin Luther was facing the Roman hierarchy, having been summoned to meet the Diet of the German Empire at the City of Worms, he uttered a long and eloquent defense, closing it with these immortal words, Unless I shall be refuted and convinced by testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by public, clear and evident arguments and reasons, I cannot take back anything, since I believe that neither the Pope nor the councils alone (both of them having often contradicted themselves) have power to hinder truth; and since it is neither safe nor advisable to do anything against the conscience, I will so stand. Amen. From that position no Protestant can ever decline and yet claim an evangelical faith. On Stephens ground, every loyal soul will continue to stand and for that conviction, if need be, die.
If the Scriptures are not authoritative, the world is without light, the soul is at sea without chart or compass, the sun has gone down, even the moon is clouded, and the stars are blotted out.
This laymans charge was in defense of the inspiring Spirit. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye (Act 7:51). Men who go away from church, announce their own spiritual experience and lay bare their own spiritual lives by what they say of the sermon. If it is an intellectual treat and they rejoice in it, then preaching to them is nothing more than an intellectual exercise. If it is a poetical presentation and they praise it, then preaching to them is poetry. If it had in it eloquent phrases, sentences that flashed with facets of light, then preaching to them is simply an art. But if they ask, as did men on the day of Pentecost, What shall we do? then the preaching has been Gods Gospel, carrying conviction, revealing the Cross such an antidote to sin as to make the sacrifice of Christ essential to salvation. Tell me on what ministry you wait with pleasure and I will sound the depths of your soul, measure the limits of your sacrifice and mark the extent of your salvation!
Finally,
THE INSANITY OF INDIGNATION
The Gospel is the savor of life unto life, or of death unto death. It either regenerates man or renders him indignant, unreasonable, raging. It never produces any quasi effects, save in the souls of the inane and indifferent. Mark the effect in this instance, and remember it is accounted for in the circumstances that ceremonies and professions, even clerical ordinations, and displaced spiritual convictions and experiences.
This rage expressed not reason, but convictions of wrong. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth (Act 7:54).
Men who have reason with them seldom rage. The man who is consciously right does not need to bluster, storm, threaten, foam! Christ was often and grievously insulted and sometimes He spake in scorching language, but the lightning flashes of truth from His lips were not from the bosom of black clouds. They came from one whose face remained calm and clear as the sky of a midsummer day. It was the higher-critical Pharisee, the skeptical Sadducee from the synagogue, that raged, gnashed teeth, screeched in the frenzy of a fury. It is commonly so. In every debate, the man who makes the most noise, expresses the deepest outrage, seeks the most horrible fate for his opponent, is the man conscious of the weakness of his cause, yea, even convicted of its wrong. Orthodoxy can afford to be calm. Yea, by its constitution, it is calm. This calmness is the consciousness of its own strength.
This attempt at mob rule voiced a social insanity. Loud leaders often produce insane assemblies. If outward conduct voices inner conceptions, then all sanity is gone.
Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
And cast him out of the city, and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young mans feet, whose name was Saul (Act 7:57-58).
Ecclesiastical forms and ceremonies have always had their raging defenders. There have been men who have made more of the outward organization than of the indwelling Spirit; more of ecclesiastical than of Divine ordination; more of the ceremonies than of the esprit de corps. Sir Robert Anderson never said a truer thing than this, The Lord Jesus Christ would never have been crucified, neither would Stephen have been martyred, nor Paul imprisoned, but for words and acts deemed derogatory to the tabernacle; and in these days a man may, with impunity, deny all the vital truths of Christianity and reject our Divine Lords teachings about the Scriptures which He came to fulfil, and remain in good standing in the church, but let one say a word in disparagement of any human element of the Christian religion and he is at once cast out of the synagogue. In the judgment of many, it is more essential to remain loyal to the convention than it is to Christ; loyal to leadership of man than to the leadership of the Spirit; loyal to the drives and plans of ambitious program-makers than it is to the Divine program and the preaching of the Gospel itself.
Oh, that the time might come when once more the Spirit of God would visit the churches and give us a discernment between that society, the professed church, and that true spiritual organization which is His body; between the woman clothed in scarlet, drunken with the blood of the saints, and the blessed Bride, whose crown is righteousness. But until the end of the age come, the martyrs of the second shall be made by the children of the first.
The slaughter of the saint leaves his spirit unsullied.
And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,
And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep (Act 7:59-60).
The figure is as of an infant going to rest in its mothers arms. What a beautiful ending and what a contrast with the brutal means by which it is brought about! But, for that matter, what can disturb the soul of the saint?
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:35; Rom 8:38-39).
When John Calvin lay dying, with his last breath he whispered, Thou, Lord, bruisest me, but I am abundantly satisfied.
Richard Baxter uttered these words, I have painthere is no arguing against sensebut I have peace, peace; Samuel Rutherford, If He should slay me ten thousand times ten thousand, ten thousands times I will trust; Mr. Goodwin, How have I dreaded as an enemy this smiling friend; John Noyes, kissing the stake to which he was bound, said to his fellow martyrs, We shall not lose our lives in this fire, but change them for a better, and for coals we shall have jewels; while old John Huss, described as the greatest soul that the world knew, went from the stake by a chariot of fire, and left behind him a song as sweet as any ever sung by the lark, floating back to earth long after the singer had vanished out of sight, in the martyrs immortal language, Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace, good mil toward men. We praise Thee, we bless Thee, we glorify Thee, we give thanks to Thee for Thy great glory!
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL REMARKS
Act. 7:1. The high priests question, Are these things so? analogous to that put to Christ (Mat. 26:62), was equivalent to a modern Guilty or not guilty?
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).
Act. 7:9. Moved with envy, or jealousy, they, the patriarchs, sold Joseph into Egypti.e., to be carried thither. Stephen condenses the Genesis narrative.
Act. 7:10. The Pharaoh under whom Joseph rose to power was the last of the Hyksos or Shepherd kings, Apophis, who, not being himself a native Egyptian, might feel disposed to favour the Hebrew stranger who had in so remarkable a manner interpreted his dreams and saved the country.
Act. 7:11. A dearth over all the land of Egypt and Canaan.Brugsch, Sayce, and others find this dearth in a famine, which, according to an inscription from a noblemans tomb at Eileythia in Southern Egypt, prevailed in the land for several years, and during which the dead man (Baba), according to the inscription, distributed corn to the city each year of famine. Baba, the nobleman in question, is supposed to have lived shortly before the establishment of the eighteenth dynasty. Counting four hundred and thirty years back from B.C. 1325, when Menephtah II. ascended the Egyptian throne, gives the reign of Apophis as the commencement of the exile according to Stephen, as the date of the promise according to Paul. (But see above on Act. 7:6.)
Act. 7:14. Threescore and fifteen souls.So the LXX. in Gen. 46:27; but the Hebrew text of Gen. 46:27; Exo. 1:5, and Deu. 10:22 gives threescore and ten as the number of souls that went down into Egypti.e., the sixty-six of Gen. 46:26 with four (Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh) added. The additional five were probably Josephs grandsons, counted by the LXX. as among his sons. Stephen, a Hellenist, most likely followed the LXX. without deeming it necessary to correct what after all was no mis-statement, if sons be taken in the wider sense of descendants.
Act. 7:16. Carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money.Two historical inaccuracies are commonly discovered here:
1. That Jacob and the fathers were all buried at Sychem, or Shechem, Abrahams earliest settlement in Canaan (Gen. 12:6-7); whereas Jacob was interred at Hebron (Gen. 1:13), and only Josephs bones were laid in Sychem (Jos. 24:32), Scripture being silent as to where those of the other fathers were deposited.
2. That Abraham purchased a sepulchre at Shechem from the sons of Emmor, or Hamor, for a sum of money, or for a price in silver; whereas the tomb Abraham bought was at Hebron, while the seller was Ephron the Hittite (Gen. 23:16), and Jacobs purchase was of a field at Shechem (Gen. 33:19), in which afterwards Josephs bones were interred (Jos. 24:32). As to the first part of Stephens statement that Jacob and the fathers were all carried over into Shechem and laid in a tomb, nothing can invalidate that. If Stephen must be understood as asserting that all were laid in the same tomb, that was not so, since Jacob was buried at Hebron and Joseph at Sychem, unless it can be shown that Josephs bones were subsequently reinterred in the patriarchal vault at Hebrona hypothesis not impossible, certainly, but still not capable of proof. If, further, Stephen purposed to affirm that Abraham bought a tomb at Shechem, this can only be harmonised with Genesis by maintaining that the tomb at Shechem was purchased twiceonce by Abraham and afterwards by Jacob, which is not a likely supposition. The suggestion that Abraham has been either substituted in the text for Jacob, or inserted in the text which originally had no nominative to the verb purchased, is rendered inadmissible by all existing MSS. having Abraham. Yet if Jacob were inserted every difficulty would not vanish. It would still remain impossible to maintain that Jacob was interred at Shechem. Could Stephen himself be recalled, it might be possible to solve this problem; in his absence it must be given up, at least till additional data be forthcoming. On the ground of this unsolved problem it would be rash to challenge the inspiration of either Stephen or Luke.
Act. 7:18. Another king which knew not Joseph.This was Aahmes, the first monarch of the eighteenth dynasty, a prince of great force of character, brave, active, energetic, liberal, beloved by his subjects (Rawlinson, The Story of the NationsEgypt, p. 152).
Act. 7:19. Dealt subtilly with our kindred, or race.With Aahmes the new policy towards the Israelites may have begun, but the author of the cruel decree appears to have been Seti I., while Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Menephtah II. the Pharaoh of the Exodus. They cast out.Pharaohs object in the oppression appears to have been to render the lives of the Israelites so miserable that they would rather cast out their offspring than see them grow up to experience such woe as themselves endured. If he be read instead of they, then the well-known decree (Exo. 1:16-22) is that to which Stephen alludes.
Act. 7:22. Learned.Better, trained or instructed.
Act. 7:24. Suffer wrong, injured, by beating (Exo. 2:11). The wrongdoer may have been one of Pharaohs taskmasters. A bas-relief recovered from the Nile Valley exhibits one of these standing over a gang of slaves, whip in hand, and saying as he lashes them, To your work, O slaves: ye are idle!
Act. 7:25. He supposed should be he was supposing, meaning that was his habitual mood of mind at this period. Would deliver them should be gives them deliverance or salvation; the present tense signifying either that the deliverance was at hand or was beginning with the blow then struck.
Act. 7:29. Madian, or Midian.In the south-east of the Sinaitic peninsula.
Act. 7:30. Mount Sinai.Exodus (Exo. 3:1) gives, as the scene of this Divine manifestation, Horeb, which was probably the name of the range, Sinai being the designation of the particular peak (Robinson, Eadie), though others regard Sinai as the range and Horeb as the peak. Whether Sinai, the mountain of the Law, was Jebel Serbal (Burckhardt, Lepsius, and Ebers), or Ras-es-Sufsafeh (Robinson, Stanley, Porter), or Jebel Musa (Wilson, Sandie), travellers are not decided. Josephus (Ant., II. xi. 1) and Paul (Gal. 4:25) locate it in Arabia, which Sayce thinks to a writer of the first century would mean Arabia Petra. Wherefore he looks for Sinai not in the peninsula, but among the ranges of Mount Seir in the neighbourhood of Kadesh Barnea (see The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, pp. 263373).
In Act. 7:32-33 the order of the Hebrew text is transposed.
Act. 7:35. A deliverer, or redeemer, .A latent allusion to the work of Christ.
Act. 7:36. After that he had showed should be having done or wrought.
Act. 7:37. The Lord your are omitted in best MSS. Like unto me might be rendered as he raised up me.
Act. 7:38. The Church.The use of a term employed by the LXX. (Deu. 18:16; Deu. 23:1; Psa. 26:12)for the congregation of Israel warrants the inference that Stephen at least regarded the Hebrew nation as a church and the new assembly of believers as its representative under the Christian dispensation.
Act. 7:41. They made a calf is one word in the original. The calf, or bullock, was selected in imitation of the Egyptians, who worshipped an ox, Apis at Memphis and Mnevis at Heliopolis.
Act. 7:42. In the book of the prophets.The quotation is from Amo. 5:25-27. The interrogation, Have ye offered unto Me? etc., is much used by the higher criticism to prove that the sacrificial system of the so-styled priest code had no existence in the time of Moses; but the prophets meaning is not that the Israelites did not offer sacrifices to Jehovah in the wilderness, but that, though they did, their hearts ran after their idolatriesthe worship of Moloch and the Star Rephanso that Jehovah rejected their insincere service.
Act. 7:43. The tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your god Remphan.The Hebrew might be rendered Siccuth your king and Chiun (or the shrine of) your images, the star of your god (R.V.), Siccuth being in this case the name of one idol which the Hebrews worshipped as their king, and Chiun the name of another, believed to have been the planet Saturn, of which the name among the Syrians and Arabians was Kwn. Stephen, however, followed the LXX., who understood Siccuth as equivalent to tabernaclei.e., the portable tent in which the idols image was carriedand for your king substituted, with some ancient MSS., Moloch, the idol meant; while for Chiun your images they read the star of your god Rephan, which Kircher believes to be Koptic for Saturn, and Schrader regards as a corruption from Kewan. That the LXX. failed to intelligibly translate the second Hebrew clause was of small moment to Stephen. The words, the star of the god, showed that God had given the Israelites up to worship the host of heaven. The substitution of Babylon for Damascus in the Hebrew and the LXX. is explainable by the fact that Babylon had long been associated in Jewish history with the exile.
Act. 7:44. The tabernacle of the testimony in the wilderness was so called because it contained the Ark in which the two tables of the Decalogue were kept (Num. 11:15; Num. 17:13).
Act. 7:45. Our fathers that came after should be simply our fathers. Jesus is Joshua, as in Heb. 4:8. Into (lit. in) the possession of the Gentiles.Meaning that the Ark was brought in to remain in the possession of the nationsi.e., in their land. The R.V. reads, When they entered on the possession of the nations; lit. at or in their taking possession of (the land of) the nations.
Act. 7:46. Tabernacle should be habitation, permanent abode, like house in Act. 7:47.
Act. 7:48. The prophet was Isaiah (Isa. 66:1-2).
Act. 7:52. Which of the prophets, etc., echoed the words of Christ (Mat. 5:12; Mat. 23:31; Luk. 13:34).
Act. 7:53. By the disposition of the angels is better rendered in the R.V., as it was ordained by angels, or as ordinances of angels; lit. unto ordinances of angels. Compare Gal. 3:19 and Heb. 2:2.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 7:1-53
The Apology of Stephen; or, a Vindication of Christianity
I. To whom it was addressed.
1. The Jewish Sanhedrim, consisting of Annas, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and perhaps also Gamaliel, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea, if the last two had not by this time withdrawn from the conclave. The court that had already condemned the apostles (Act. 7:27) was little likely to give a fair hearing to the eloquent deacon.
2. The Jewish people generally. Through their official representatives, with whom at this moment they were acting in sympathy and concert.
3. All whom in after ages it might concern. Though this presumably entered not into Stephens, it without doubt formed part of the Holy Spirits mind.
II. In what spirit it was spoken.
1. With affection. Hinted at by the term brethren with which Stephen saluted his judges and accusers. A sign of goodness as well as greatness on the part of Stephen that he disowned not kinship with the truculent adversaries who were then thirsting for his blood.
2. With reverence. Not forgetting the respect due to the elders of his people, he courteously addressed them as fathers. No man ever injures his cause by rendering honour to whom honour is due.
III. Of what statements it was composed.
1. A historical retrospect. The drama of Israels career was opened out in three successive acts.
(1) The age of the Patriarchs before Moses (Act. 7:2-16); or the age of the promise, rehearsing the story of Abrahams call by the God of Glory first from Mesopotamia (Ur of the Chaldees) and afterwards from Haran, to go into the Land of Canaan. This call the patriarch obeyed, only to find that God, who had promised to bestow Canaan for possession, on himself and on his seed after him, when as yet he had no child, actually gave him in it none inheritance. Rather God predicted that before his descendants should come into their heritage they should be bondmen in a strange land for four hundred years. At the same time, in pledge that the promise would be fulfilled and the land kept for its appointed heirs, the God of glory gave to the patriarch the covenant of circumcision, which was handed on from sire to son, till in Jacobs days events began to move in the direction of bringing together the heirs and the inheritance. Joseph, his fathers favourite son, was sold into Egypt by his envious brethren, who also by a singular combination of circumstances some time later, in a season of famine, repaired thither to find the brother they had evil entreated governor over all the land. At his invitation Jacob, with his kindred, numbering threescore and fifteen souls, went down into Egypt, where they died and left behind them children, in what was soon to become for them a house of bondage. With that closed the first act in the drama.
(2) The age of Moses (Act. 7:17-46); or, the age of the law, sketching the career of Moses in three periods of forty years. Three generations rolled over him, writes Emil Zittel (Die Entstehung der Bibel, p. 40). Three times he lived through the holy number of forty years; as son of Egyptian wisdom, as shepherd of the wilderness, as emancipator of his people. Of these periods the first began during the currency of Israels oppression, and, embracing the lawgivers birth and education in the house of Pharaoh, ended with his flight into Midian (Act. 7:17-29). The second closed with the appearance to him in the Wilderness of Sinai, of an angel of God, and his subsequent departure into Egypt to lead forth his people from captivity, which he successfully accomplished (Act. 7:30-36). The third opened with the Exodus, included the wilderness wanderings, and terminated with the entrance into Canaan under Joshua (Act. 7:37-45).
(3) The Age of the Prophets; or, the Age of the Temple (Act. 7:46-53), telling the brief but simple tale of Davids proposal to find a habitation for the God of Jacob, and of Solomons building Him a house, in which indeed Jehovah was formally worshipped, while outside His prophets were disobeyed and persecuted.
2. An implied representation. Of the history of Jesus, which had its obvious parallel and prefigurement in the just recited career of the nation.
(1) Like Joseph whom his brethren sold for envy, but whom Jehovah delivered and appointed to be their preserver, Christthough Stephen leaves this unexpressedhad been rejected by them, yea even sold into the hands of His enemies and put to death, raised up by God, exalted to the highest throne in heaven, made Lord of all and sent to be their Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins.
(2) Like Moses, whom his countrymen understood not and resisted, but who afterwards led them forth to liberty, Christ had come unto His own, who likewise knew Him not, but thrust Him from them, and was coming again to offer them emancipation from sin and death.
(3) Like the men who in the wilderness preferred the tabernacle of Moloch to that Jehovah had caused to be constructed for them, and like their descendants who desecrated the temple by carrying on within its sacred precincts, in defiance of the warnings of Jehovahs prophets, heathen orgies instead of the legitimate Jehovah worship, so had they defiled, desecrated, and despised the true tabernacle and temple of Jehovah, even Jesus of Nazareth, and preferred to Him the lifeless stones of the material edifice, and the meaningless service of an effete ritual.
IV. With what arguments it was charged.
1. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with the law. This could not be:
(1) Because the God of Glory had appeared unto the father of the nation in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran (Act. 7:2). If a theophany or Divine manifestation be the basis of all acceptable worship, as the law itself says (Exo. 22:24), then clearly such worship did not originate at Sinai but at Ur of the Chaldees, and not with Moses but with Abraham.
(2) Because the promise of a Messiah, admittedly the kernel of Mosaism, was given to Abraham when as yet he had no child and therefore no descendants on whom to enjoin the law (Act. 7:5).
(3) Because the covenant of circumcision in which all Israelites gloried as of the essence of their law was not of Moses but of Abraham (Act. 7:8; compare Joh. 7:22).
(4) Because the presence of God with His people to protect and deliver them, which was what pious Jews understood by salvation, did not begin with His coming down to talk with them at Sinai, but had been enjoyed by Joseph in Egypt (Act. 7:10), and by Josephs father and brethren through him (Act. 7:14-15).
2. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with Moses. This it could not be:
(1) Because when Moses first offered himself to his countrymen, in Jehovahs name, as a deliverer, they would not receive him but thrust him from them (Act. 7:23-29).
(2) Because Moses himself, who had been miraculously called and strengthened to effect their temporal deliverance, had distinctly pointed them to a greater prophet than himself, even to Jesus, though Stephen leaves this supplementary thought unspoken (Act. 7:30-37).
(3) Because though Moses had been the medium of conveying to Israel the living oracles, or oracles of life received from Jehovah, he could not secure Israels obedience to these, even at the moment when Israel was encamped in Jehovahs presence (Act. 7:38-41).
3. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with the temple. This once more was impossible:
(1) Because in the wilderness the tabernacle, which was the shadow of the temple, could not retain the allegiance of the people to Jehovah. Instead of offering to Jehovah slain beasts and sacrifices at the tabernacle door, they took up the tent of Moloch and carried about the star of the god Remphan (Act. 7:42-43).
(2) Because the temple was never meant to be anything more than an emblem of Jehovahs true habitation, as saith the prophet, The heaven is My throne, etc. (Act. 7:46-50).
(3) Because the existence of the temple could not keep Israels fathers from resisting the Holy Ghost and murdering Jehovahs prophets (Act. 7:51-52).
4. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with them. They had certainly been honoured above all peoples, had received the law as ordained byi.e., as it were, at the hands of angels, had listened to the voices of Jehovahs prophets showing before the coming of the Righteous Onei.e., of Messiahand had enjoyed the gracious influences of the Holy Spirit upon their hearts, and yet to what had all these gracious privileges led? They had not kept the law except in the letter, and not always that; they had not believed in Jehovahs prophets but persecuted and killed them, the last and greatest of them having been the righteous One of whom they had just been the betrayers and murderers; and they had not yielded to but resisted the Holy Ghost. Was it not then idle to assert or suppose that they were the representatives of the true Jehovah-worship? Such was the spirit of Stephens address.
V. To what results it conducted.
1. For his hearers.
(1) Conviction of guilt. They were cut to the heart, pierced to the quick, sawn asunder with inward pain because of inability to deny the truth of Stephens charges.
(2) Rage against their prisoner, at whom they snarled and snapped with their teeth like angry wolves, impatient to devour their prey, because his cutting invective, penetrating to their consciences, had brought their guilt to remembrance.
2. For himself. A violent death and a martyrs crowna large recompense for a short service; a brief shame followed by a long fame; a little loss and then an eternal gain (see on Act. 7:54-60).
Learn.
1. That an eloquent and able defence is not always followed by a verdict of acquital.
2. That it does not always conduce to ones personal safety to tell the truth.
3. That judges are not always open to the force of sound reasoning.
4. That opponents defeated in argument are seldom merciful.
5. That the sins of one age are often repeated in the next.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Act. 7:1-53. The Speech of Stephen.
I. A masterpiece of sacred eloquence.
II. A witness to the truth of Old Testament history.
III. A testimony to the sustaining power of religion.
IV. A proof of the reality of divine inspiration.
V. A noble vindication of Jesus Christ.
VI. A striking anticipation of Pauline universalism.
NOTE.On the Historical Credibility of this Speech.That this speech was not really uttered by Stephen, but freely composed by a late author (Baur, Zeller Weizscker, Holtzmann, and others) has been argued on the following grounds:
1. That it takes so little notice of the special accusation against which Stephen defends himself (Baur, Paul, his Life and Work, vol. i., p. 44). But in this Stephen only showed how entirely absorbed he was in vindicating his Master rather than in excusing himself. Besides, that his speech should have this appearance is a powerful indirect testimony to its genuineness, since its composer, had it not been Stephen, would have been sure to have avoided this appearance of incongruity.
2. That it contains historical inaccuracies, as, e.g., about the call of Abraham (Act. 7:2), the burial of the patriarchs (Act. 7:16), and the duration of the Egyptian bondage (Act. 7:6). But the so-called inaccuracies are susceptible of reasonable explanation; and, even if they were not, could only be urged against the inspiration of the speech, and not against its genuineness. If the composer of the speech could err, so also might Stephen, assuming that he was not inspired.
3. That it discovers verbal and material points of contact with the discourses of Peter and Paul (Overbeck, Weizscker, Supernatural Religion, iii., 145178); but exactly this is what one should have expected from Stephen, who was the contemporary of these men, and believed the same facts and doctrines as they did.
4. That it goes far beyond the standpoint of Paul in teaching the spirituality of worship (Act. 7:38; Act. 7:48), and seems rather to belong to later Christian Alexandrinism (Holtzmann); but this is an altogether unwarranted assertion, since Paul quite as clearly teaches that God can be rightly worshipped only in the Spirit (Act. 17:24; Eph. 2:21-22; Php. 3:3).
5. That the riotous proceeding against Stephen renders it improbable there was any transaction at all before the Sanhedrim (Baur, i. 56). This, however, is simply turning criticism into ridicule; as if the Jewish Sanhedrim never overstepped its legitimate powers, and was always a law-abiding court. Credat Judus!
6. That there is nothing to prevent the supposition that the historian put this speech into Stephens mouth (Baur, i. 56). But inasmuch as the speech is admitted to have well suited the character of Stephen, and to be correctly stamped with his declared religious views, it is much easier to suppose that Stephen himself delivered it than that Luke or another composed it.
7. That there is difficulty in understanding how the speech would or could be taken down in court. But even if Paul did not make notes of it at the time (Baumgarten), the memories of some who heard of it might not be unequal to the task of its preservation. Examples of remarkable memories are not wanting either in ancient or in modern times.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
c.
Stephens defence. Act. 7:1-53.
Act. 7:1
And the high priest said, Are these things so?
Act. 7:2
And he said,
Brethren and fathers, hearken: The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran,
Act. 7:3
and said unto him, Get thee out of thy land, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee.
Act. 7:4
Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Haran: and from thence, when his father was dead, God removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell:
Act. 7:5
and he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: and he promised that he would give it to him in possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.
Act. 7:6
And God spake on this wise, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and that they should bring them into bondage, and treat them ill, four hundred years.
Act. 7:7
And the nation to which they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.
Act. 7:8
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 the twelve patriarchs.
Act. 7:9
And the patriarchs, moved with jealousy against Joseph, sold him into Egypt; and God was with him,
Act. 7:10
and delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.
Act. 7:11
Now there came a famine over all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance.
Act. 7:12
But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent forth our fathers the first time.
Act. 7:13
And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Josephs race became manifest unto Pharaoh.
Act. 7:14
And Joseph sent, and called to him Jacob his father, and all his kindred, three score and fifteen souls.
Act. 7:15
And Jacob went down into Egypt; and he died, himself and our fathers;
Act. 7:16
and they were carried over unto Shechem, and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a price in silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem.
Act. 7:17
But as the time of the promise drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt,
Act. 7:18
till there arose another king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.
Act. 7:19
The same dealt craftily with our race, and ill-treated our fathers, that they should cast out their babes to the end they might not live.
Act. 7:20
At which season Moses was born, and was exceeding fair; and he was nourished three months in his fathers house:
Act. 7:21
and when he was cast out, Pharaohs daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son.
Act. 7:22
And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; and he was mighty in his words and works.
Act. 7:23
But when he was well-nigh forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.
Act. 7:24
And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, smiting the Egypttian:
Act. 7:25
and he supposed that his brethren understood that God by his hand was giving them deliverance; but they understood not.
Act. 7:26
And the day following he appeared unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?
Act. 7:27
But he that did his neighbor wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?
Act. 7:28
Wouldest thou kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday?
Act. 7:29
And Moses fled at this saying, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons.
Act. 7:30
And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush.
Act. 7:31
And when Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold, there came a voice of the Lord,
Act. 7:32
I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. And Moses trembled, and durst not behold.
Act. 7:33
And the Lord said unto him, Loose the shoes from thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
Act. 7:34
I have surely seen the affliction of my people that is in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I am come down to deliver them: and now come, I will send thee into Egypt.
THE DAMASCUS GATEBAB EL AMUD (GATE OF THE COLUMN).
The northern entrance to Jerusalem.
Out of the northern gate of the ancient city of Jerusalem went the proud Pharisee on his way to Damascus to bring back bound to Jerusalem all those of the Way. But he himself came back through the same gate bound to the one he went to persecute. There are multitudes of persons who go in and out of glory than Saul of Tarsus gate with no more thought of the king of glory than Saul of Tarsus in the long ago. Through the northern entrance came Paul and Barnabas with the offering for the poor saints in Jerusalem. (Act. 11:27-30) Once again they must have come with an offering for the poor. (Act. 21:17) As Paul returned to the city of Zion from time to time did these familiar places call to his heart the events associated with them? Have you traveled the Damascus road? Have you gone through the northern gate?
Act. 7:35
This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? him hath God sent to be both a ruler and a deliverer with the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.
Act. 7:36
This man led them forth, having wrought wonders and signs in Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.
Act. 7:37
This is that Moses, who said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me.
Act. 7:38
This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us:
Act. 7:39
to whom our fathers would not be obedient, but thrust him from them, and turned back in their hearts unto Egypt,
Act. 7:40
saying unto Aaron, Make us gods that shall go before us: for as for this Moses, who led us forth out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.
Act. 7:41
And they made a calf in those days, and brought a sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their hands.
Act. 7:42
But God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, Did ye offer unto me slain beasts and sacrifices Forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
Act. 7:43
And ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch,
And the star of the god Rephan,
The figures which ye made to worship them:
And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
Act. 7:44
Our fathers had the tabernacle of the testimony in the wilderness, even as he appointed who spake unto Moses, that he should make it according to the figure that he had seen.
Act. 7:45
Which also our fathers, in their turn, brought in with Joshua when they entered on the possession of the nations, that God thrust out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
Act. 7:46
who found favor in the sight of God, and asked to find a habitation for the God of Jacob.
Act. 7:47
But Solomon built him a house.
Act. 7:48
Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act. 7:49
The heaven is my throne,
And the earth the footstool of my feet:
What manner of house will ye build me? saith the Lord:
Or what is the place of my rest?
Act. 7:50
Did not my hand make all these things?
Act. 7:51
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act. 7:52
Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers;
Act. 7:53
ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not.
Act. 7:1-57 Remember as we consider this defense that Stephen stood before the Sanhedrin to answer the charge of blasphemy. He evidently thought it would be best to approach this charge in an indirect manner. He did this because of the terrible antagonism against Jesus already existing in the Sanhedrin.
Thus this Grecian Jew who was full of wisdom evidently felt that if he used an analogy the rulers would see the evident application and yet would not be offended, thus giving them the greatest opportunity to accept the Messiahship of Jesus. With this thought in mind Stephen devoted his discourse to a review of Jewish history. He could not have selected a more appropriate subject, for these men were exceedingly proud of their heritage. Note this: Throughout the entire history of the Jews he weaves the thought that every man whom God sent to the nation of Israel was rejected and mistreated; that there was not one man sent from God who was accepted for what he was. In the case of Joseph, the Patriarchs refused him and sold him into Egypt. Moses was twice rejected. The application of this narrative should have been self-evident. The application that fairly shouts from Stephens account is that the rulers of the Jews in his day were doing with Jesus exactly what their fathers did with Joseph, Moses and all the prophets.
While the above comments contain a brief resume of Stephens message it is well to point out here that Stephen did not close his sermon without giving a direct answer to the charge of speaking against the temple. He answered the accusation by saying that God did not dwell in temples made with hands. It was even as Isaiah had said: The heaven is my throne, for all these things hath my hands made. The earth is the footstool of my feet. What manner of house will ye build me? saith the Lord. Or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hands make all of these things? So, if the temple was to be destroyed (and it was), this would not destroy the dwelling place of Jehovah.
221.
In what manner did Stephen approach the charge of the blasphemy?
222.
How did the method used by Stephen give to the Sanhedrin the greatest opportunity to accept Jesus as the Christ.
223.
What thought is interwoven throughout the entire message of Stephen?
224.
What is the self-evident application of Stephens sermon?
As the young Grecian Jew looked into the faces of those before him, he saw as he drew near the end of his narrative that all of his wisdom and earnestness was not going to avail in convincing these Jews that they should accept Jesus as the Messiah. There was nothing they could say against it but they were not going to accept it. The response of those before him must have been one of cool indifference mingled with self-righteous judgment. To see this expression upon the faces of those before whom you were pleading for life would have filled with icy fear the heart of one less brave than Stephen. In the heart of this noble soul there was aroused nothing but a great passionate indignation that these men could face the truth and yet refuse it, these who above all others were to be devoted to a search for and acceptance of the truth. Stephen could no longer forebear. If these men would make the application he would make it for them. It was not that they did not see, nor that they did not understand, it was only that they would not. From his pent-up heart there burst forth these words:
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed them that showed before the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers; ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels and kept it not.
We do not deem it necessary to give an extended explanation of each of the verses contained in Stephens address. Most of these verse are self-explanatory.
Here is an outline of Stephens defense for careful study: Introduction:
The life of Abraham. Act. 7:2-8.
1)
First called by God in Ur of the Chaldees. Act. 7:2-3.
2)
Removed to Canaan from Haran following the death of his father. Act. 7:4-5.
3)
His seed to be in bondage four hundred years. Act. 7:6.
4)
The judgment of Egypt and the return to Canaan. Act. 7:7.
5)
The covenant of circumcision and the birth of Isaac, Jacob and the twelve patriarchs. Act. 7:8.
225.
How did Stephen answer the charge of blasphemy?
226.
What must Stephen have perceived in the faces of those to whom he spoke? What was the result?
227.
Why would it have been reasonable for Stephen to expect these men to accept Jesus as the Messiah? Why didnt they do so?
228.
What did Stephen do for these men that they would not do for themselves?
IThe case of Joseph. Act. 7:9-19.
1.
The rejection and ill treatment of Joseph. Act. 7:9.
2.
God was with Joseph and gave him favor in the sight of Pharaoh. Act. 7:10.
3.
The famine resulting in the ending of the fathers. Act. 7:11-12.
4.
At their second visit Joseph manifests himself to his brethren, Act. 7:13.
5.
Joseph sends for his father and all his kindred. Act. 7:14.
6.
Jacob dies in Egypt. The Patriarchs also die and are carried over into Shechem and buried in the tomb which Jacob purchased from the sons of Hamor in Shechem. Act. 7:15-16.
IIThe case of Moses. Act. 7:20-43.
1.
Moses born at the time of the slaying of the infants; was nourished three months at home, when put out was found by the daughter of Pharaoh and reared in her court. Act. 7:20-21.
2.
He was instructed in all the wisdom of Egypt and became mighty in word and work. Act. 7:22.
3.
At forty years of age he attempted to deliver his people from bondage but was rejected. Act. 7:23-28.
4.
Killed an Egyptian in his zeal for his people; lest he be found out he fled to Midian. Act. 7:29.
5.
Having been in Midian forty years and having begotten two sons he was called by God through the burning bush to deliver the children of Israel. Act. 7:30-34.
6.
The very Moses whom they rejected at first was now the one to perform wonders and signs and to lead them out of Egypt through the Red Sea into the Wilderness. Act. 7:35-36.
7.
This was the Moses who spoke of the prophet to come who would be like unto him; this was the man who was in the wilderness and with the angel that spoke to him in the mount and with the fathers who received the living oracles. Act. 7:37-38.
8.
But the fathers were not obedient but longed for Egypt and asked for a Golden Calf while Moses was in the mount. Act. 7:39-40.
9.
The calf was made and they worshiped it. God gave them up to fulfill the prophesy of Amos. Act. 7:41-43.
229.
What were the thoughts of Stephens introduction and first divisions?
230.
Give from memory three facts about Moses.
IIIThe direct answer of Stephen to the blasphemy charge, Act. 7:44-50.
1.
The tabernacle was movable and perishable in nature. Act. 7:44-45.
2.
The temple was built through David and Solomon but the prophet Isaiah said that even it was infinitely too small to contain the living God. Act. 7:46-50.
3.
Hence, it would not be blasphemy to say that this temple was yet to be set aside and destroyed.
Conclusion:
Stephen makes the application of his message. Act. 7:51-53.
1. Considering the manner in which they received his message they are called stiffnecked like an ox that would not bow its head to receive the yoke. Uncircumcised in heart and ears: this was as much as to say that their hearts and ears were unclean. (cf. Lev. 26:41; 1Sa. 17:26; Jer. 6:10).
2 He states the evident application of his message. Act. 7:52.
3. Another privilege that was theirs: they had received the law as it was ordained (or given) by angels. But they kept it not. This only added to their guilt. Act. 7:53 (cf. Heb. 2:2; Gal. 3:19).
d.
The results. Act. 7:54-57.
Act. 7:54
Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
Act. 7:55
But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Act. 7:56
and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Act. 7:57
But they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord;
Stephen reached the hearts of his listeners but they were hearts of stone. There was not the spirit of inquiry and honesty that would allow them to receive the word with meekness. There was only the spirit of pride and self-righteousness. Hence, when Stephen let them see themselves as God did they were full of anger and literally ground their teeth at him. They bared their teeth in rage as a dog or any other carnivorous animal.
God gave to Stephen in this hour a vision of his home. Jehovah drew aside the curtain and let Stephen look for this fleeting moment into His very presence. The scripture here paints a beautiful scene. There in front of that angry mob stands Stephen with his face uplifted to God. The Holy Spirit floods his soul, his spirit is totally yielded to the spirit of God. There, as he gazes into the heavens the limitations of material sight are removed and he looks into that spiritual realm. As he looks into the glory that surrounds God he sees Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Luke has told us that Jesus sat down at the right hand of God, but here He stands to welcome home the first martyr to His cause. Speaking under the ecstasy of the vision Stephen cries out to his would-be murderers, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Surely this touching word should stop them in their purpose.
But when pride is injured there is no reason in the actions, They did the only thing they could do; they would hear no more of this, so they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears so as to drown out and hold out these words of truth that were cutting so deeply their stubborn ego, and rushed upon him with one accord, We might observe that this was not a very dignified way for seventy pious elders, lawyers and priests to act,
231.
What two points did Stephen give in answer to the charge of blasphemy?
232.
How could their ears be uncircumcised?
233.
What is the meaning of the phrase gnashed on him with their teeth?
234.
What thought is given as to why Jesus was standing on the right hand of God?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
VII.
(1) Then said the high priest, Are these things so?The question was analogous to that put to our Lord. The accused was called on to plead guilty or not guilty, and had then an opportunity for his defence. On that defence we now enter.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 7
STEPHEN’S DEFENCE ( Act 7:1-7 ) When Oliver Cromwell was outlining the education he thought necessary for his son Richard, he said, “I would have him know a little history.” It was to the lesson of history that Stephen appealed. Clearly believing that the best form of defence was attack, he took a bird’s eye view of the history of the Jewish people and cited certain truths as condemnation of his own nation.
(i) He saw that the men who played a really great part in the history of Israel were the men who heard God’s command, “Get thee out,” and were not afraid to obey it. With that adventurous spirit Stephen implicitly contrasted the spirit of the Jews of his own day, whose one desire was to keep things as they were and who regarded Jesus and his followers as dangerous innovators.
(ii) He insisted that men had worshipped God long before there ever was a Temple. To the Jews the Temple was the most sacred of all places. Stephen’s insistence on the fact that God does not dwell exclusively in any temple made with hands was not to their liking.
(iii) Stephen insisted that when the Jews crucified Jesus they were only setting the coping stone on a policy they had always followed; for all through the ages they had persecuted the prophets and abandoned the leaders whom God had raised up.
These were hard truths for men who believed themselves to be the chosen people, and it is little wonder that they were infuriated when they heard them. We must watch for these ever-recurring notes as we study Stephen’s defence.
THE MAN WHO CAME OUT ( Act 7:1-7 continued) 7:1-7 The high priest said, “Is this so?” And Stephen said, “Men, brothers and fathers, listen to what I have to say. The God of glory appeared to Abraham our father when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Charran. He said to him, ‘Get out from your country and from your kindred and come here to a land which I will show you.’ Then he came out from the land of the Chaldaeans and took up his residence in Charran. After the death of his father he removed from there and took up his residence in this land where you now live. God did not give him an inheritance in it, not even enough to set his foot upon. But he did promise him that he would some day give it to him for a possession and to his descendants after him, although at that time he had no child. God spoke thus–that his descendants would be sojourners in an alien land, that they would make slaves of them and treat them badly for four hundred years. As for the nations to which they will be slaves–God said–‘l will judge them, and after these years have passed, they will come out and they will serve me in this place.'”
As we have already seen, it was Stephen’s method of defence to take a panoramic view of Jewish history. It was not the mere sequence of events which was in Stephen’s mind. To him every person and event symbolized something. He began with Abraham, for in the most literal way it was with him that, for the Jew, history began. In him Stephen sees three things.
(i) Abraham was a man who answered God’s summons. As the writer to the Hebrews put it, Abraham left home without knowing where he was to go ( Heb 11:8). He was a man of adventurous spirit. Lesslie Newbigin of the Church of South India tells us that negotiations towards that union were often held up by people demanding to know just where such and such a step might lead. In the end someone had to say to these careful souls, “A Christian has no right to demand to know where he is going.” For Stephen the man of God was he who obeyed God’s command even when he had no idea what the consequences might be.
(ii) Abraham was a man of faith. He did not know where he was going but he believed that, under God’s guidance, the best was yet to be. Even when he had no children and when, humanly speaking, it seemed impossible that he ever should have any, he believed that some day his descendants would inherit the land God had promised to them.
(iii) Abraham was a man of hope. To the end of the day he never saw the promise fully fulfilled but he never doubted that it would be.
So Stephen presents the Jews with the picture of an adventurous life, ever ready to answer God’s summons in contrast to their desire to cling to the past.
DOWN INTO EGYPT ( Act 7:8-16 ) 7:8-16 “So he gave him the covenant of which circumcision was the sign. So he begat Isaac and he circumcised him on the eighth day. And Isaac begat Jacob and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs. The patriarchs were jealous of Joseph and sold him into Egypt; but God was with him and rescued him from all his troubles and gave him grace and wisdom before Pharaoh king of Egypt. So he made Joseph the ruler of Egypt and of his whole house. There came a famine upon the whole of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction; and our fathers could not find food. But Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, and he despatched our fathers there on their first visit. On the second visit Joseph’s brothers discovered who he was, and Joseph’s family became known to Pharaoh. So Joseph sent and invited Jacob his father to come together with all his relations, in all seventy-five persons. So Jacob came down to Egypt; and he himself died there and so did our fathers. They were brought over to Sychem and they were laid in the tombs which Abraham had bought at the price of silver from the sons of Emmor in Sychem.”
The picture of Abraham is succeeded by the picture of Joseph. The key to Joseph’s life is summed up in his own saying in Gen 50:20. At that time his brothers were afraid that, after the death of Jacob, Joseph would take vengeance on them for what they had done to him. Joseph’s answer was, “As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good.” Joseph was the man for whom seeming disaster turned to triumph. Sold into Egypt as a slave, wrongfully imprisoned, forgotten by the men he had helped, the day yet came when he became prime minister of Egypt. Stephen sums up the characteristics of Joseph in two words–grace and wisdom.
(i) Grace is a lovely word. At its simplest it means beauty in the physical sense; then it comes to mean that beauty of character which all men love. Its nearest English equivalent is charm. There was about Joseph that charm which is always on the really good man. It would have been extremely easy for him to become embittered. But he dealt faithfully with each duty as it emerged, serving with equal devotion as slave or as prime minister.
(ii) There is no word more difficult to define than wisdom. It means so much more than mere cleverness. But the life of Joseph gives us the clue to its meaning. In essence, wisdom is the ability to see things as God sees them.
Once again the contrast is there. The Jews were lost in the contemplation of their own past and imprisoned in the mazes of their own Law. But Joseph welcomed each new task, even if it was a rebuff, and adopted God’s view of life.
THE MAN WHO NEVER FORGOT HIS FELLOW-COUNTRYMEN ( Act 7:17-36 ) 7:17-36 “When the time for the fulfillment of the promise which God had told to Abraham drew near, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt, until there arose another king in Egypt who had no knowledge of Joseph. He schemed against our race and treated our fathers badly by making them cast out their children so that they would not survive. At this point Moses was born and he was very comely in God’s sight. For three months he was nurtured in his father’s house. When he was put out Pharaoh’s daughter took him up and she brought him up as her own son; and Moses was educated in all the lore of the Egyptians. He was mighty in his words and in his deeds. When he was forty years of age the desire came into his heart to visit his brothers, the sons of Israel. He saw one of them being maltreated and went to his help; and he struck the Egyptian and exacted vengeance for the man who was being ill-treated. He thought that his brothers would understand that God was going to rescue them through him but they did not understand. The next day he came upon the scene as two of them were fighting. He tried to reconcile them and to make peace between them. ‘Men,’ he said, ‘you are brothers. Why do you injure each other?’ But the one who was injuring his neighbour pushed him away and said, ‘Who made you a ruler or a judge over us? Do you intend to murder me in the way you murdered the Egyptian yesterday?’ When Moses heard this he fled and he became a sojourner in the land of Midian. There he begat two sons. When forty years had passed, when he was in the desert in the neighbourhood of Mount Sinai, an angel appeared to him in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it he was astonished at the sight. When he approached to see what it was the voice of the Lord came to him, ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.’ Moses was afraid and dared not look. But God said to him.. ‘Take your shoes off your feet for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. In truth I have seen the evil that is being done to my people in Egypt and I have heard their groaning. I have come down to rescue them. Come now–I will send you to Egypt.’ This Moses whom they rejected saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and judge over us?’ this very man God despatched as ruler and rescuer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. He led them out after he had performed wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years.”
Next upon the scene comes the figure of Moses. For the Jew, Moses was above all the man who answered God’s command to go out. He was quite literally the man who gave up a kingdom to answer God’s summons to be the leader of his people. Our Bible story has little to tell us of the early days of Moses; but the Jewish historians had much more to say. According to Josephus, Moses was so beautiful a child that, when he was being carried down the street in his nurse’s arms, people stopped to look at him. He was so brilliant a lad that he surpassed all others in the speed and the eagerness with which he learned. One day Pharaoh’s daughter took him to her father and asked him to make him his successor on the throne of Egypt. Pharaoh agreed. Then, the tale goes on, Pharaoh took his crown and jestingly placed it on the infant Moses’ head; but the child snatched it off and threw it on the ground. One of the Egyptian wise men standing by said that this was a sign that if he was not killed at once this child was destined to bring disaster on the crown of Egypt. But Pharaoh’s daughter snatched Moses into her arms and persuaded her father not to heed the warning. When Moses grew up he became the greatest of Egyptian generals and led a victorious campaign in far-off Ethiopia where he married the princess of the land.
In face of that we can see what Moses gave up. He actually gave up a kingdom in order to lead his people out into the desert on a great adventure for God. So once again Stephen is making the same point. The great man is not the man who, like the Jews, is thirled to the past and jealous of his privileges; he is the man who is ready to answer God’s summons and leave the comfort and the ease he might have had.
A DISOBEDIENT PEOPLE ( Act 7:37-53 ) 7:37-53 “It was this man who said to the sons of Israel, ‘God will raise up a prophet from among your brothers, like me.’ It was this Moses who was in the gathering of the people in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him in Mount Sinai, and with your fathers. It was he who received the living oracles to give to you. But your fathers refused to be obedient to him. They rejected him. In their hearts they turned back to Egypt. They said to Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go before us, as for this man Moses we do not know what has happened to him.’ So in those days they made a calf and they sacrificed to the idol they had made and they found their joy in the works of their hands. And God turned and gave them over to the worship of the host of heaven; as it stands written in the Book of the Prophets, ‘Did you not bring me slain victims and sacrifices for forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? But now you have accepted the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Remphan, the images you have made in order to worship them. I will take you away to live in the lands beyond Babylon.’ Our fathers possessed the tent of witness in the wilderness, as he who spoke instructed Moses to make it according to the pattern which he had seen. Your fathers received it from one generation to another, and brought it in with Joshua at the time when they were gaining possession of the lands of the nations whom God drove back from before your fathers, right up to the time of David. He found favour with God and he asked to be allowed to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him. But the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands. As the prophet says, ‘Heaven is my throne, earth is a footstool for my feet.’ ‘What kind of house will you build for me?’ says the Lord, ‘or where is the place where I will rest? Has not my hand made all these things?’ Stiff-necked, uncircumcised in hearts and ears, you have always opposed the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who told beforehand the tidings of the coming of the Just One, whom you betrayed and whose murderers you became–you who received the Law by the disposition of angels and who did not keep it.”
The speech of Stephen begins to accelerate. All the time by implication it has been condemning the attitude of the Jews; now that implicit condemnation becomes explicit. In this closing section of his defence Stephen has woven together several strands of thought.
(i) He insists on the continued disobedience of the people. In the days of Moses they rebelled by making the golden calf. In the time of Amos their hearts went after Moloch and the star gods. What is referred to as the Book of the Prophets is what we call the Minor Prophets. The quotation is actually from Amo 5:27 but Stephen quotes not from the Hebrew version but the Greek.
(ii) He insists that they have had the most amazing privileges. They have had the succession of the prophets; the tent of witness, so called because the tables of the Law were laid up and kept in it; the Law which was given by angels.
These two things are to be put side by side–continuous disobedience and continuous privilege. The more privileges a man has the greater his condemnation if he takes the wrong way. Stephen is insisting that the condemnation of the Jewish nation is complete because in spite of the fact that they had every chance to know better they continuously rebelled against God.
(iii) He insists that they have wrongly limited God. The Temple which should have become their greatest blessing was in fact their greatest curse; they had come to worship it instead of worshipping God. They had finished up with a Jewish God who lived in Jerusalem rather than a God of all men whose dwelling was the whole universe.
(iv) He insists that they have consistently persecuted the prophets; and–the crowning charge–that they have murdered the Son of God. And Stephen does not excuse them on the plea of ignorance as Peter did. It is not ignorance but rebellious disobedience which made them commit that crime. There is anger in Stephen’s closing words, but there is sorrow too. There is the anger that sees a people commit the most terrible of crimes; and there is the sorrow that sees a people who have refused the destiny that God offered them.
THE FIRST OF THE MARTYRS ( Act 7:54-60 ; Act 8:1 ) 7:54-60 As they listened to this their very hearts were torn with vexation and they gnashed their teeth at him. But he was full of the Holy Spirit and he gazed steadfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. So he said, “Look now, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at God’s right hand.” They shouted with a great shout and held their ears and launched themselves at him in a body. They flung him outside the city and began to stone him. And the witnesses placed their garments at the feet of a young man called Saul. So they stoned Stephen as he called upon God and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Kneeling down he cried with a loud voice, “Lord, set not this sin to their charge.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep. And Saul fully agreed with his death.
A speech like this could only have one end; Stephen had courted death and death came. But Stephen did not see the faces distorted with rage. His gaze had gone beyond time and he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. When he said this it seemed to them only the greatest of blasphemies; and the penalty for blasphemy was stoning to death ( Deu 13:6 ff.). It is to be noted that this was no judicial trial. It was a lynching, because the Sanhedrin had no right to put anyone to death.
The method of stoning was as follows. The criminal was taken to a height and thrown down. The witnesses had to do the actual throwing down. If the fall killed the man good and well; if not, great boulders were hurled down upon him until he died.
There are in this scene certain notable things about Stephen. (i) We see the secret of his courage. Beyond all that men could do to him he saw awaiting him the welcome of his Lord. (ii) We see Stephen following his Lord’s example. As Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of his executioners ( Luk 23:34) so did Stephen. When George Wishart was to be executed, the executioner hesitated. Wishart came to him and kissed him. “Lo,” he said, “here is a token that I forgive thee.” The man who follows Christ the whole way will find strength to do things which it seems humanly impossible to do. (iii) The dreadful turmoil finished in a strange peace. To Stephen came the peace which comes to the man who has done the right thing even if the right thing kills him.
The first half of the first verse of chapter 8 goes with this section. Saul has entered on the scene. The man who was to become the apostle to the Gentiles thoroughly agreed with the execution of Stephen. But as Augustine said, “The Church owes Paul to the prayer of Stephen.” However hard he tried Saul could never forget the way in which Stephen had died. The blood of the martyrs even thus early had begun to be the seed of the Church.
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
2. Stephen’s Defence and Martyrdom , Act 7:1-60 .
1. These things so? The high priest Theophilus utters not the word guilty to this prisoner with the angel -like face.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
3. Stephen’s Funeral Dispersion of Jerusalem Church, Act 7:1-4 .
1. And (rather, but)
Saul A transitional sentence. The same Saul, the indorser of the completed martyrdom, is leader of the coming persecution.
At that time Literally, and doubtless truly, on that day. The martyrdom was the first act of the persecution.
Church at Jerusalem First mention of a city Christian Church; designating the organic body of all the congregation; a spiritual republic. The word Church ( ) is used in the New Testament to denote, (1) The whole body of believers, (Mat 16:18; 1Co 10:32; Gal 1:13; Eph 1:22; Eph 3:10; Eph 5:23-24; Eph 5:27; Eph 5:29; Eph 5:32; Php 3:6; 1Ti 3:15, etc.;) (2) A part of this whole, a particular congregation, as that at Jerusalem, or at Antioch, or at Rome, (1Co 11:18; 1Co 14:19 ; 1Co 14:33.) (Shaff., Apost. History.)
All The entire Jerusalem Church, with an exception soon to be noted.
Scattered abroad That this dispersion was truly total (with the apostolic exception soon to be considered) is abundantly evident in spite of the unauthorized doubt of most commentators. Luke tells us that all the Church was scattered scattered abroad into different countries; scattered by a most thorough persecution, ransacking every house, and sparing no class or character. (Act 7:3.) So far as Saul’s keen eye could detect, not a Christian was left in Jerusalem. And it was because he was well satisfied that his work was thoroughly done in Jerusalem that he extended it to Damascus. And this terrible inquisition, as Mr. Lewin calculates, lasted a full six months.
Except And surely where Luke states explicitly the exception, for himself all other exceptions are excluded.
Except the apostles Why the apostolic twelve remained after the disappearance of the Church from Jerusalem, and how they remained safely, are two very interesting questions, treated scarce satisfactorily to our own mind by the body of commentators. First, the apostles remained, beyond all question, from some known imperative duty, such as an extension of the injunction in Act 1:4, would impose. Now a very early tradition reaches us, through different independent channels, affirming that that injunction upon the apostles to remain in Jerusalem was extended to twelve years. Thus Eusebius tells us that Apollonius, a writer of the second century, records that “It was handed down by tradition that our Saviour commanded his disciples not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years.” In an apocryphal work, the “Preaching of Peter,” it is said, “The Lord said to his apostles, If any one therefore of Israel repent, and through my name be willing to believe in God, his sins shall be forgiven him. After twelve years go ye out into the world, lest any say, We have not heard.” This tradition so accords with the fact by Luke here stated, with our Lord’s command. (Act 1:4,) with the great rule obeyed even by Paul, “the Jew first, then also the Gentile,” that it may safely be accepted as an aid in solving the question of the apostles braving the danger of this terrible moment. And all this goes far to answer the second question. If the great Head of the Church required the presence of the twelve at Jerusalem, He provided for their safety. Not a hair of their head should perish if he needed their survival. Some powerful or skilful concealers, whose conscience was Christian, but whose courage (like that of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) dared not assume the Christian profession, might, with an inconsistent bravery, venture to cover and protect them from the searching eye of Saul himself, and leave the lion’s whelp bereaved of his prey. Many a lurking place those turbulent times had provided, such as the cells subterranean of the spacious tombs, enabling the apostles to anticipate the Church of the Catacombs. None the less were they the enthroned viceroys of the Great King, (Mat 19:28,) and none the less would they hold communion with and supervision over the scattered missionaries who were spreading the Gospel abroad. When Philip’s success in Samaria reaches their ears it is as an organic body that they delegate two of their college to supervise the new field. Yet their home is still Jerusalem; and in confining their mission mainly to Jews, they hold themselves as fulfilling the true nature of the Lord’s command. We very decidedly reject the theory of Baumgarten, that the twelve themselves were, as Jews, thrown into the background by the call of Paul, as being a sort of failure. Here in Jerusalem, and after their own missionary dispersion, they were life-long heads of the universal Church, with but one additional colleague, (Paul,) and with no successor.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the high priest said, “Are these things so?” ’
We are left to recognise that the High Priest, the chairman of the tribunal, has had the charges laid out before the court. He then turns to Stephen and asks severely, ‘Is this true? Are these things so?’. It was a fair question.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Preaching and Martyrdom of Stephen (6:8-7:60).
It is one of the exciting things about serving God that we never know what He is going to do next. In Act 6:1-7 the Apostles had rid themselves of the administrative burden of ‘serving tables’ and dealing with the administration of food to needy Hellenistic Christians, by appointing seven men to perform the task, one of whom was named Stephen. Little did they dream that God would then choose to take Stephen and give him a ministry similar to that of the Apostles. And even less did anyone realise that shortly he would be promoted to glory by way of martyrdom.
Stephen was a Hellenistic Jewish Christian (essentially Greek speaking and previously attendant at synagogues where Greek was basically used) and his ideas and interpretations of the Old Testament were therefore probably more liberal than those of the Hebraic Jewish Christians, although we must not make too much of this for what he would shortly say in his defence was perfectly orthodox.
But it may help to explain why he caused a furore where the Apostles had not. The Hellenistic Jews in general may well have laid less emphasis on the centrality of the Temple and its accompanying ritual, interpreting the Scriptures more allegorically (as Philo, a Hellenistic Jew, certainly did in Alexandria). On the other hand the Apostles, centring their message on Christ, and on what He had come to do and finally accomplish, seemingly otherwise kept common cause with their Jewish brethren. Their present view was of a transformed Judaism, responsive to Jesus Christ. They had not yet considered wider issues.
Stephen appears to have stressed that in Christ ‘the land’ and the Temple had ceased to hold a position of prime importance. Now it was Christ, coming as the Saviour of men, Who was to take central stage. And the thoughts of men should therefore be more centred on Him than on Temple ritual. It was not that he abandoned the Temple completely. It was that he deprecated the hold that it had on people, when he felt that their focus should be centred on Christ. These are the ideas that will shortly come to the fore in his final defence. Men, he declares, should not be looking to the land, or to the Temple, they should be looking to God’s great Deliverer.
Thus as a Hellenist he went to synagogues in Jerusalem which the Apostles had probably little touched, for there were many synagogues of all shades of opinion in Jerusalem. But one thing is certainly clear. His declaration of the faith was powerfully effective.
Up to this point the main opponents of the new born church have been the Sadducees, for the witness of the church appears to have been focussed through the Temple, although they had no doubt taken up opportunities to speak elsewhere. However, on the whole the Pharisees appear to have tolerated them. But now Stephen would take his witness into the synagogues in no uncertain fashion, and there he would be in direct confrontation with the Pharisees. Thus the Sadducean opposition would now be bolstered by the Pharisees.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Church’s Structure (Divine Service): Key Witnesses that Began the Spread of Gospel into Judea and Samaria While Act 2:1 to Act 5:42 gives us the testimony of the founding and growth of the Church in Jerusalem, the stoning of Stephen gave rise to the spreading of the Church to Judea and Samaria. Act 6:1 to Act 12:25 serves as the testimony of the spread of the Gospel to the regions beyond Jerusalem as a result of persecution, which was in fulfillment of Jesus’ command to the apostles at His ascension, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Act 1:8) In Act 6:1-7 the New Testament Church begins to structure itself with the office of the deacon. One of these deacons named Stephen becomes the first martyr of the Church (Act 6:8 to Act 7:1 a). As the result of a great persecution fueled by the zeal of Saul of Tarsus, the Gospel begins to spread into Judea and Samaria. Philip the evangelist takes the Gospel into Samaria and to an Ethiopian eunuch (Act 8:5-40), Saul of Tarsus is converted (Act 9:1-31), Peter takes the Gospel beyond Jerusalem to the house of a Gentile named Cornelius (Act 9:32 to Act 10:48), while Luke provides additional testimonies of Church growth to Antioch and further persecutions (Act 11:1 to Act 12:25). These testimonies emphasize the spread of the Gospel into Judea and Samaria.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Introduction: Appointment of First Deacons Act 6:1-6
2. The Witness of Stephen Act 6:7 to Act 8:4
3. The Witness of Philip the Evangelist Act 8:5-40
4. The Witness of Paul’s Conversion Act 9:1-31
5. The Witness of Peter Act 9:32 to Act 10:48
6. The Witness of Church Growth Act 11:1 to Act 12:25
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Witness of Stephen In Act 6:7 to Act 8:4 Luke records the witness of Stephen. The importance of his testimony is the fact that he is the first martyr of the Church, ushering in a period of persecution that spread the Gospel abroad.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Stephen’s Arrest Act 6:7-15
2. Stephen’s Sermon Act 7:1-53
3. Stephen is Stoned Act 7:54 to Act 8:1 a
4. The Persecution and Scattering of the early Church Act 8:1 b-4
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Defense of Stephen and His Death.
Stephen refers to the call of Abraham:
v. 1. Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
v. 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,
v. 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.
v. 4. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Charran; and from thence, when his father was dead, He removed him in to this land, wherein ye now dwell.
v. 5. And He gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on; ye the promised that He would give it to him for a possession and to his seed after him when as ye the had no child. The charges having been preferred, the president of the Sanhedrin, the high priest, gave Stephen permission to answer upon them. And Stephen opens his speech of defense with a respectful address to the judges, some of whom were of his own age and station, and thus might well be called brethren, while others were venerable with age, and thus should be called fathers. The very first words of his speech make it clear that he intends to correct some prevalent notions. The glory of God in the cloud of the covenant, the so-called Shechinah, was not confined to the Tabernacle or to the Temple, but the God of glory, the Possessor of the unlimited divine majesty, revealed Himself also at other places, just as it suited His purposes. It was thus that He appeared to Abraham while the latter was still living in Mesopotamia, in Ur of the Chaldees, before the entire family moved to Charran, or Haran, Gen 11:31; Gen 12:1. In Charran, Abraham had received the command of the Lord to leave both his country and his kindred, and to move to the country which even Terah had had in mind before his death. So Abraham, at that time Abram, had completed the removal to the land of Canaan, where he lived as a stranger among the Canaanites, not having so much as where he could place his foot to call his own. It is true, indeed, that both Abraham and Jacob had small parcels of land in Canaan, but they had them by purchase, not by God’s gift, and Abraham was even obliged to buy a burying-place for his wife, Gen 23:1-20. Thus the promise of God to Abraham that he, and his descendants after him, should have the land as their possession, at a time when he did not even have a child of his own, required a very strong faith.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Act 7:1
And the high priest said for then said the high priest, A.V. The high priest spoke as president of the Sanhedrim (see Act 9:1-43. 1 and Mat 26:62). Theophilus the son of Annas or his brother Jonathan is probably meant.
Act 7:2
Brethren and fathers for men, brethren, and fathers, A.V. Haran for Charran, A.V. Brethren and fathers. The Greek is (i.e. “men who are also my brethren”) . He adds “and fathers” out of respect to the elder and more dignified portion of the Sanhedrim. It seems probable that Stephen, as a Hellenist Jew, spoke in Greek, which is borne out by the quotations being from the LXX. (see Alford), though Meyer and others think he spoke in Hebrew. Greek was generally understood at this time by all educated persons (see Roberts, ‘Discussions on Gospels,’ Acts 2-7.). The speech itself is almost universally admitted to bear strong internal marks of genuineness and originality. But different estimates have been formed of its excellence, and different explanations given of its scope and object. Difficult but striking; long and prolix;” “at first sight absurd and out of place;” “wonderful but difficult;” “of inestimable value;” “a speech containing many things which don’t seem much to the point;” “a powerful speech;” a speech combining “the address of the advocate and the boldness of the martyr;”are some of the estimates that have been formed of it by modern commentators. As regards its scope and object, the two main clues to it are the accusation which Stephen rose to rebut, and the application with which he ended in Act 7:51-53. If we keep these two things steadily in view, we shall not be very far wrong if we say that Stephen sought to clear himself by showing,
(1) by his historical summary, what a true and thorough Israelite he was in heart and feeling and fellowship with the fathers of his race, and therefore how unlikely to speak blasphemous words against either Moses or the temple;
(2) how Moses himself had foretold the coming of Christ as a prophet like himself, to enunciate some new doctrines;
(3) how at every stage of their history their fathers had resisted those who were sent to them by God, and that now his judges were playing the same part. Perhaps it may be further true, as Chrysostom explains it (Hom. 15., 16., 17.), that his intention in the early part of the speech was to show “that the promise was made before the place, before circumcision, before sacrifice, before the temple,” in accordance with St. Paul’s argument (Gal 3:16-18); and that therefore the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant could not be dependent upon the Law or the temple. The God of glory. This unusual phrase identifies God, of whom Stephen speaks, with the God whose visible glory was seen by the patriarchs (Gen 12:7; Gen 18:1; Gen 26:2; Gen 28:12, Gen 28:13; Gen 35:9; Exo 24:16, Exo 24:17; Num 16:19; Isa 6:1-13.; Joh 12:41). St. Paul uses a similar phrase, “The Lord of glory ‘(1Co 2:8). Our father. He thus identifies himself with his judges, whom he had just called “brethren.” In Mesopotamia, which would be in Hebrew “Aram of the two rivers.” The exact place, as we learn from Gen 11:31, was “Ur of the Chaldees;” whence the Israelites were taught to say (Deu 26:5), “An Aramcan ready to perish was my father.” That this appearance was in Ur, before he dwelt in Haran, is manifest from Gen 11:31, because it is there said that they went forth from Ur “to go into the land of Canaan,” which makes it quite certain that the appearance of God to Abraham had preceded their leaving Ur, and was the cause of it. And this is confirmed by Gen 15:7; Neh 9:7; and Josephus (‘Ant.,’ 1. 7.1). Moreover, the very language of the call shows plainly that it came to him when he was living in his native country, among his kindred, and in his father’s house, i.e. at Ur, not in Haran, where they were only sojourners. There is nothing the least unusual, in Hebrew narrative, in the writer going back to any point in the preceding narrative with which the subsequent narrative is connected. Gen 12:1-20. I precedes in point of time Gen 11:31; similar examples are Gen 37:5, Gen 37:6; Jdg 20:1-48., passim; 1Sa 16:21 compared with 1Sa 17:28; 1Sa 22:20, 1Sa 22:21, compared with 1Sa 23:1-29. 6; and many more. It is, however, of course possible that a fresh call may have been given after Terah’s death, though it is by no means necessary to suppose it. Another imaginary difficulty arises from the statement in Gen 12:4 that Abraham was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran, that Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran, and that Terah died at the age of two hundred and five; and from the statement in Gen 12:4 of this chapter that Abram did not leave Haran till Terah’s death. From which it is concluded that Terah must have lived sixty years after Abram’s departure. But the whole difficulty arises from the gratuitous supposition that Abram was Terah’s firstborn because he is named first. If Terah were a hundred and thirty at the birth of Abram, he would be two hundred and five when Abram was seventy-five. Now, there is absolutely nothing to forbid the supposition that such was his age. It does not follow that because Abram is named first he was the eldest. He might be named first as being by far the most illustrious of the three, tie might be named first because the subsequent genealogiesIsaac, Jacob, and the twelve Patriarchswere deduced from him. There may, too, have been other sons of Terah, not named here because nothing was going to be said about them. Nahor is mentioned because Rebekah was his granddaughter (Gen 24:15, Gen 24:24) and Rachel his great-granddaughter. And Haran is mentioned because he was the father of Lot. Others, whether sons or daughters, would not be mentioned. If Terah, therefore, began to have children when he was seventy, it is quite probable that Abram may not have been born till he was a hundred and thirty. That the son named first need not necessarily be the eldest is clear from the order in which Shem, Ham, and Japheth are named, whereas it appears from Gen 9:24 that Ham was the youngest, and from Gen 10:2, Gen 10:21 (according to the A.V. and the LXX., Symmachus, the Targum of Onkelos, and the old Jewish commentators), that Japheth was the eldest. In Jos 24:4 God says, “I gave unto Isaac Jacob and Esau,” though Esau was the elder; and so Heb 11:20. So again in Exo 5:20 we read, “Moses and Aaron” (see also Exo 40:31; Num 16:43; Jos 24:5; 1Sa 12:6; etc.), though it appears from 1Ch 6:3 that Aaron was the eldest. So again we read in Gen 48:5, “Thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh,” and in verse 20, “God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh,” though in verse I of the same chapter they are named according to the true order of birth”Manasseh and Ephraim.” It is, therefore, an unwarrantable inference that Abram was the eldest son because he is named first; and with the removal of this inference the difficulty vanishes; and Stephen was quite accurate when he said that God appeared to Abraham in Ur, before he dwelt in Haran, and that he did not move from Haran till the death of Terah. Haran. Charran in A.V. marks the difference between Haran (), Lot’s father, and the name of the place (). It is called “the city of Nahor” (Gen 24:10 compared with Gen 47:1-31 :43). It still exists as an Arab village, with the name of Harran (see ‘Dictionary of Bible’).
Act 7:3
Thy land for thy country, A.V.
Act 7:4
Haran for Charran, A.V.; God removed for he removed, A.V. The land of the Chaldaeans. In Gen 11:28 Ur is called “Ur of the Chaldees.” When his father was dead (see note to Gen 11:2). God removed. That God is the subject appears from the following verbs, “he gave,” “he promised.” The verb , he removed, is the technical word for planting a colony. Wherein, etc. ( ); into which ye came and dwelt.
Act 7:5
And for yet, A.V.; in for for a, A.V. He gave him none inheritance, etc. (comp. Heb 11:8, Heb 11:9).
Act 7:6
In a strange land; a land belonging to some one else (Heb 11:9, , as here); a land in which he had none inheritance, not yet become the possession of his seed; for as the writer to the Hebrews says, he dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob; not applicable, therefore, in the first instance to Egypt at all. And this sojourning as strangers and pilgrims lasted altogether four hundred and thirty years, vie. two hundred and fifteen years in Canaan, and two hundred and fifteen in Egypt; which agrees exactly with St. Paul’s reckoning in round numbers of four hundred years from the giving of the promise to Abraham to the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai (Gal 3:17). The “four hundred years” must not be taken in connection with the bondage” and the ill treatment which characterized the last half of the period, but as spoken of the whole period during which they had not possession of the promised land. Bring them into bondage. So the LXX.; but the Hebrew, as rendered in the A.V., has “and they shall serve them.” But some (see Gesenius, ‘Thes.’) render the Hebrew as the LXX. Do. Four hundred years. This is a round number, as in Gen 15:13. The exact time, as given in Exo 12:40, Exo 12:41, was four hundred and thirty years.
Act 7:7
Which for whom, A.V. And serve me in this place. These words are not in Gen 15:1-21., from which the preceding words are quoted. Instead of , the LXX, following the Hebrew, have , “with great substance.” The words “serve me in this place,” seem certainly to have been suggested by Exo 3:12, “Ye shall serve God upon this mountain;” but they give a perfectly correct account of what happened in this ease.
Act 7:8
Jacob the twelve for Jacob begat the twelve, A.V. He gave him the covenant of circumcision, subsequently to the gift of the land by promise. The argument suggested is apparently the same as St. Paul’s in Rom 4:10-17.
Act 7:9
Moved with jealousy against Joseph, sold him, for moved with envy sold Joseph, A.V., more correctly, and in accordance with Gen 37:11, LXX.; and for but, A.V. Moved with jealousy, etc. Here breaks out that part of Stephen’s argument which went to show how the Israelites had always ill-used their greatest benefactors, and resisted the leaders sent to them by God.
Act 7:10
Before for in the sight of, A.V. And delivered him, etc. And even so had he delivered his servant Jesus from the grave, and raised him to eternal life.
Act 7:11
Famine for dearth, A.V.; Egypt for the land of Egypt, A.V. and T.R.; Canaan for Chanaan, A.V.
Act 7:12
Sent forth for sent out, A.V.; the first time for first, A.V.
Act 7:13
Race became manifest for kindred was made known, A.V. “Kindred” is a much better word here, because Joseph’s “race” was already known to Pharaoh (Gen 41:12); “was made known” is a far better phrase than “became manifest.”
Act 7:14
And Joseph sent for then sent Joseph, A.V.; called to him Jacob his father for called his father Jacob to him, A.V. Three score and fifteen souls. In Gen 46:26, Gen 46:27, the statement is very precise that “all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were three score and ten,” including Joseph and his two sons. Moreover, the accuracy of the number is tested in two ways. First, the names of the sons and daughters of each patriarch are given, and they are found, on counting them, to amount to exactly seventy. And then the totals of the descendants of each of Jacob’s four wives is given separately, and again the total is exactly seventy. It is true that the computation in Gen 46:26 does not agree with the above, for it makes the number of Jacob’s descendants, exclusive of Joseph and his two sons, sixty-six instead of sixty-seven, which is the number according to the two above computations, and consequently the total number (when Joseph and his two sons are added) sixty-nine instead of seventy. But this is such a manifest contradiction that it seems almost a necessity to suppose a clerical error, for , caused perhaps by the preceding . It is also a singular anomaly that, in the enumeration of Leah’s descendants, as well as in the general enumeration, Er and Onan are distinctly reckoned as well as mentioned. Jacob himself is nowhere reckoned in the Bible, though he is in the commentaries. But when we turn to the LXX., we find that in Gen 46:20 there are added to Manasseh and Ephraim Machir the son and Gilead the grandson of Manasseh; and Suthelah and Taam the sons, and Edom (meaning Eran, LXX. Eden, Num 26:36) the grandson, of Ephraim, making the descendants of Rachel eighteen (it should be nineteen if Huppim, Gen 46:21, is added) instead of fourteen; the number sixty-six of verse 26 is preserved; the number of Joseph’s descendants is given as nine (Huppim apparently being now reckoned), which, added to sixty-six, makes seventy-five; and accordingly in verse 27 the LXX. read (“seventy-five souls”), instead of “three score and ten.“ But except in the addition of these five names of Joseph’s grand and great-grand-children, the LXX. support the Hebrew text, even in the strange sixty-six of verse 26. Stephen, as a Hellenist, naturally follows the LXX. But the question arisesHow are we to understand the lists? Gen 46:8 says, “These are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt;” and one naturally expects to find the names only of those who are described in Gen 46:5-7 as the migratory party from Canaan to Egypt. This expectation is somewhat disturbed by Er and Onan being included in the enumeration. This may, however, be accounted for by Pharez and Zerah being reckoned as their seed. But is it likely that Hezron and Hamul the sons of Pharez, and the other great-grandsons of Jacob, were born before the descent into Egypt? The answer to this is that, as Jacob was a hundred and thirty years old when he came down to Egypt (Gen 47:28), there is no improbability in his having great-grandchildren (allowing forty years for a generation); on the contrary, every likelihood that he should. But on the other hand, as Joseph could not have been above fifty when Jacob came down to Egypt, Gen 41:46, Gen 41:29, Gen 41:30, it does not seem likely or possible that Joseph should have had grown-up grandsons and a great-grandson, as the LXX. make him have. Indeed, to all appearance Manasseh and Ephraim were unmarried young men at the time that Jacob blessed them (Gen 48:11, Gen 48:16; Gen 50:23). Therefore we may conclude certainly that the additional numbers of the LXX. are incorrect, if understood literally, of these who came down with Jacob from Canaan to Egypt. But there is nothing improbable in Benjamin having ton children. Judah, to whom grandchildren are attributed, was Jacob’s fourth son, and might be forty or fifty years older than Joseph and Benjamin. Asher, to whom also grandsons are attributed, was the eighth son, and might be twenty years older than Joseph and Benjamin. Still, considering that Er and Onan are reckoned among those who came down to Egypt, it would not be surprising to find that some of those mentioned in the list were born after Jacob’s arrival, but included on some principle which we do not understand. In other words, a literal interpretation of the statement of the Hebrew Bible involves no impossibilities, but a literal interpretation of the statement of the LXX. does.
Act 7:15
And for so, A.V.; he died, himself for died, he, A.V.
Act 7:16
And they were for and were, A.V.; unto Shechem for into Sychem, A.V., i.e. the Hebrew for the Greek form of the name (Gen 34:2); tomb for sepulcher, A.V.; a price in silver for a sum of money, A.V.; Hamor for Erect, A.V. (Hebrew for Greek form); in Shechem for the father of Sychem, A.V. and T.R. As regards the statement in the text, two distinct transactions seem at first sight to be mixed up. One, that Abraham bought the field of Machpelah of Ephron the Hittite for a burial-place, where he and Sarah, and Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah, were buried (Gen 24:16, Gen 24:17, Gen 24:19; Gen 25:9, Gen 25:10; Gen 35:27-29; Gen 49:29-31); the other, that Jacob “bought a parcel of a field , at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for an hundred pieces of money,” where the bones of Joseph were buried by Joshua (Gen 33:19; Gen 50:25; Jos 24:32), and where, according to a tradition still surviving in the days of St. Jerome, the other patriarchs were also buried (‘Epistol.’86,” She came to Sichem, now called Neapolis (or Nablous), and from thence visited the tombs of the twelve patriarchs”). See also Jerome, ‘De Optimo Genere Interpretandi.’ All Jewish writers, however, are wholly silent” about this tradition, perhaps from jealousy of the Samaritans. And Josephus affirms that all but Joseph were buried at Hebron (‘Ant. Jud.,’2. 8.2); and that their beautiful marble monuments were to be seen at Hebron in his day. In the cave of Machpelah, however, there is no tomb of any of the twelve patriarchs except Joseph; and his so-called tomb is of a different character and situation from the genuine ones. But on looking closer at the text it appears pretty certain that only Shechem was in Stephen’s mind. For first he speaks of Shechem at once, And were carried over unto Shechem. And adds and were laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a price in silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem. Except the one word “Abraham,” the whole sentence points to Shechem. What he says of Shechem is exactly in accordance with Gen 33:18, Gen 33:19. And what he says of their fathers being carried over and buried at Shechem is exactly true of Joseph’s bones, as related in Jos 24:32. So that the one difficulty is the word “Abraham.” It seems much more probable that this word should have been interpolated by some early transcriber, who saw no nominative case to , and who had in his mind a confused recollection of Abraham’s purchase, than that Stephen, who shows such thorough knowledge of the Bible history, should have made a gross mistake in such a well-known and famous circumstance as the purchase of the field of Machpelah, or that Luke should have perpetuated it had he made it in the hurry of speech. It cannot be affirmed with certainty that Stephen confirms the story of the other patriarchs being buried at Shechem, though possibly he alludes to the tradition. The plural, “they were carried,” etc., might be put generally, though only Joseph was meant (as Mat 27:44; Mat 26:8 compared with Luk 23:1-56. 39; Joh 12:4), or “the bones of Joseph” might possibly be the subject, though not expressed. Lightfootfollowed by Bishop Wordsworth, who thinks that Abraham really did buy a field of Ephron in Sychem, when he was there (Gen 12:6)-would thus be right in supposing that the point of Stephen’s remark was that the patriarchs were buried in Shechem.
Act 7:17
As for when, A.V.; vouchsafed unto for had sworn to, A.V. and T.R. Vouchsafed; , in the sense of” to promise,” as in Mat 14:7, and not unfrequently in Greek writers, for , to swear.
Act 7:18
Over Egypt, R.T.; there arose another king for another king arose, A.V.
Act 7:19
Race for kindred, A.V., as in Act 7:13; that they should cast out for so that they east out, A.V.; babes for young children, A.V.
Act 7:20
At which season for in which time, A.V.; he was nourished three months in his father’s house for nourished up in his father’s house three months, A.V. Exceeding fair ( ). In Exo 2:2 it is simply , “a goodly child,” A.V., and so in Heb 11:23, rendered “a goodly child,” “a proper child,” A.V. Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 2. 9.5, 7) describes Pharaoh’s daughter as captivated by the size and beauty of the child, and as speaking of him to Pharaoh as of Divine beauty. And Justin (quoted by Whitby) says that the beauty of his person was greatly in his favor.
Act 7:22
Instructed for learned, A.V.; he was mighty for was mighty, A.V.; in his words and works for in words and in deeds, A.V. and T.R. The statement of Moses being instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, though not found in Exodus, was doubtless true. Josephus makes Thermeutis speak of him as “of a noble understanding;” and says that he was “brought up with much care and diligence.” And Philo, in his life of Moses(quoted by Whitby), says he was smiled in music, geometry, arithmetic, and hieroglyphics, and the whole circle of arts and sciences.
Act 7:23
Well-nigh for full, A.V. When he was precisely forty years old (Meyer) The exact meaning seems to be “when he was in the act of completing forty years.” The account in Exo 2:11 only says, “When Moses was grown” ( , LXX.); the age of forty years, and the number of years, forty, that he sojourned in Midian, as given below, verse 30, are traditional. “There are that say that Moses was forty years in Pharaoh’s palace, forty years in Midian, and forty years in the wilderness” (Tauchum, in Exodus it.). “Moses was forty years in Pharaoh’s court, and forty years in Midian, and forty years he served Israel” (Beresh. Rabb.), both quoted by Lightfoot (‘Comment. and Exercitations upon the Acts’). The sum total of the three periods of forty years is given as the length of Moses’ life, viz. a hundred and twenty years (Deu 34:7). Exo 2:24.Smiting for and smote, A.V.
Act 7:25
And he supposed that his brethren understood for for he supposed that his brethren would have understood, A.V.; was giving them deliverance for would deliver them, A.V.
Act 7:26
The day following for the next day, A.V.; he appeared for be showed himself, A.V.
Act 7:28
Wouldest for wilt, A.V.; killedst for diddest, A.V.
Act 7:29
And Moses fled for then fled Moses, A.V.; became a sojourner for was a stranger, A.V.; Midian for Madian, A.V.
Act 7:30
Fulfilled for expired, A.V.; an angel appeared for there appeared an angel, A.V.; an angel for an angel of the Lord, A.V. and T.R.; Sinai for Sina, A.V.
Act 7:31
And when for when, A.V.; behold for behold it, A.V.; there came a voice of the Lord for the voice of the Lord came unto him, A.V. There came a voice. The A.V. is surely right. The Lord has only one voice; and is that voice. The grammatical effect of upon is to make it definite, as in (see Act 5:19, note).
Act 7:32
Saying, A.V., is omitted; of Isaac and of Jacob for the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, A.V. and T.R.; and for then, A.V.
Act 7:33
And the Lord said unto him for then said the Lord to him, A.V.; loose the shoes for put off by shoes, A.V. Loose the shoes, etc. In Exo 3:5 it is . Iamblichus, quoted by Meyer, refers the Pythagorean precept, “Sacrifice and worship with thy shoes off,” to an Egyptian custom. The custom of Orientals to take off their sandals on entering mosques or other sacred places, as existing to the present day, is noticed by many travelers (see also Jos 5:15).
Act 7:34
I have surely seen (literally, seeing I have seenthe well-known Hebrew idiom for emphatic affirmation) for I have seen, I have seen, A.V.; have heard for I have heard, A.V.; and I am for and am, A.V., the change is in accordance with the A.V. of Exo 3:7, Exo 3:8.
Act 7:35
Him hath God sent for the same did God send, A.V.; both a ruler for a ruler, A.V. and T.R.; with the hand for by the hand, A.V. and T.R. ( for ), but giving no clear sense in English. The meaning seems to be that Moses was to rule and save with the strength given him by the angel But it is much simpler to take as equivalent to the common Hebrew phrase , meaning instrumentality, “by means of,” “through,” and to join it with “did send.” The angel who spake to Moses in the bush in the Name of God was God’s instrument in sending Moses. When an angel gives a message from God, the words are always given as spoken by God himself (see e.g. Jos 2:1-3). In this verse Stephen, having with great oratorical skill entranced their attention by his recital of God’s marvelous revelation of himself to Moses, now takes them off their guard, and shews how their fathers treated Moses just as they had treated Jesus Christ; and how God in the case of Moses had chosen and magnified the very man whom they had scornfully rejected; just as now he had exalted Jesus Christ to be a Prince and a Savior, whom they had crucified.
Act 7:36
This man for he, A.V.; led them forth for brought them out, A.V.; having wrought for after that he had showed, A.V.; Egypt for the land of Egypt, A.V. and T.R.
Act 7:37
God for the Lord your God, A.V. and T.R.; from among for of, A.V. The R.T. omits the words him shall ye hear, which follow in Dent. Act 18:15, and seem to be referred to in Mat 17:5 ( ). The addition of the words adds much to the point of Stephen’s application (see above, Act 3:22).
Act 7:38
Sinai for Sins, A.V. (Hebrew for Greek form); living cracks for the lively cracks, A.V. In the church. St. Stephen probably used the word without any reference to its special meaning, “the Church.” It is used in a secular sense in Act 19:32, Act 19:39, and of the congregation of Israel in the LXX. of 1Ch 13:2; 1 Macc. 2:56; Ecclesiasticus 44:15; and elsewhere. In Stephen’s time it could hardly have become widely known as the designation of the flock of Christ. On the whole, the marginal rendering, “the congregation,” seems best, but with the idea attached that it was the Lord’s congregation. The angel which spake. It may be doubted whether the phrase, “the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai,” refers to the angel spoken of in verse 30, or to the angel by whose mouth God spake the words of the ten commandments on Mount Sinai, as recorded in Exo 20:1-17; Deu 5:1-22. Chrysostom and most commentators seem to understand it of the angel who gave the Law; but Whitby, not without reason, thinks the reference is to the burning bush. Living oracles. In like manner, St. Paul calls the Holy Scriptures “the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), and in Heb 5:12 we read again of “the first principles of the oracles of God,” and St. Peter says, “Let him speak as the oracles of God” (1Pe 4:11). For the force of the living or lively oracles, see 1Pe 1:23, 1Pe 1:25. Stephen magnifies Moses by reminding his hearers how he had received the Law from God to give to the people.
Act 7:39
Obedient for obey, A.V.; turned back in their hearts unto Egypt for in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, A.V. Our fathers would not be obedient, though God had bestowed such signal marks of favor upon them. Turned back in their hearts. A striking instance of their rejection of God’s chiefest mercies.
Act 7:40
Which shall go for to go, A.V.; led us forth for brought us, A.V.
Act 7:41
Brought a sacrifice for offered sacrifice, A.V. (see Exo 32:6, with which the A.V. agrees best); hands for own hands, A.V.
Act 7:42
But for then, A.V.; to serve for to worship, A.V.; did ye offer unto me slain beasts and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? for O ye house of Israel, have ye offered, etc., by the space of forty years in the wilderness? A.V. The passage which follows is nearly verbatim et literatim the LXX. of Amo 5:25, Amo 5:27, except the well-known substitution of “Babylon” for “Damascus” in Amos. This, according to Lightfoot, with whom most commentators agree, was in accordance with a very common practice of readers in the schools and pulpits of the Jews, to adapt and accommodate a text to their own immediate purpose, keeping, however, to historical truth. Here Stephen points to the Babylonish Captivity as the punishment of the sins of their fathers, thus warning them of more terrible judgments to follow their rejection of Christ.
Act 7:43
And for yea, A.V.; the god Rephan for your god Remphan, A.V. and T.R.; the figures for figures, A.V. The god Rephan. Rephan, or Raiphan, or Remphan, as it is variously written, is the LXX. translation of the Hebrew Chiun in Amo 5:26. The best explanation of this is that Rephan is the Coptic name of the planet Saturn, well-known of course to the LXX., and that Chiun is the Hebrew and Arabic name of the same star, which they therefore translated by Rephan. With regard to the difficulty which has been felt by many that there is no mention of any such worship of Moloch and Chiun in the wilderness, and that sacrifices were continually offered to the Lord, it seems to arise from an entire misconception of the passage in Amos. What Amos means to say is that because of the treacherous, unfaithful heart of Israel, as shown in the worship of the golden calf and all their rebellions in the wilderness, all their sacrifices were worthless. Just as he had said in Amo 5:22, “Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts;” “I hate, I despise your feast days; Take away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols” (Amo 5:21, Amo 5:23): just as Isaiah also says, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts Bring no more vain oblations; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting” (Isa 1:11-13, etc.); and again, “He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood” (Isa 66:3): so all the sacrifices offered up during forty years in the wilderness were no sacrifices at all, and their hypocrisy was clearly seen when they reached the land of Canaan, and, according to Moses’ prophetic declaration, “forsook God which made them and sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not” (Deu 32:15-18), such as Chiun and Moloch, Baalim and Ashtoreth. This later idolatry was the fruit and the judicial punishment of their first declension and apostasy in the wilderness, and led to the Captivity in Babylon. It was on seeing their unfaithfulness in the wilderness that” God turned and gave them up to serve the host of heaven.”
Act 7:44
The testimony for witness, A.V.; even as he appointed who spake for as he had appointed, speaking, A.V.; figure for fashion, A.V. Chrysostom calls attention to the mention of the wilderness, as showing that God’s presence and service were not confined to Jerusalem.
Act 7:45
In their turn for that come after, (), A.V.; Joshua (the Hebrew form) for Jesus (the Greek form of the name), A.V.; when they entered on the possession of the nations for into the possession of the Gentiles, A.V.; which God thrust for whom God drave, A.V. In their turn; more literally, having received it in succession. It only occurs here in the New Testament. Meyer quotes 4 Macc. 4:15, “On the death of Seleucus, his son Antiochus received the kingdom in succession;” and classical writers. When they entered, etc. There are three ways of construing the words
(1) as the A.V., taking in the sense of , and making the phrase synonymous with the laud of Canaan, the land which the Gentiles then possessed;
(2) in (their) taking possession (of the land) of the Gentiles, i.e. when they took, taking in a transitive sense, which seems to be the sense of the R.V.:
(3) with Meyer, during the holdings or possession by the Gentiles of the land, that, viz. into which their fathers brought the tabernacle. The first seems the most simple and in accordance with the Greek of the New Testament, and with what follows of the expulsion of the nations before the Israelites.
Act 7:46
In the sight of for before, A.V. (); asked for desired, A.V.; habitation for tabernacle, A.V. (). Habitation. In Deu 33:18 stands in the LXX. for , and in 2Pe 1:13, 2Pe 1:5 :14, for the human body as the tabernacle or temporary dwelling of the soul or spirit. And the idea of a temporary or movable dwelling seems to suit Stephen’s argument better than that of a fixed one. The of Psa 132:5 (to which perhaps, as well as 2Sa 7:1-6, Stephen refers) is equally applicable to a tent.
Act 7:47
A house for an house, A.V. The (the house) of Act 7:47, which Solomon built, seems to be almost in contrast with the (the tabernacle).
Act 7:48
Houses (in italics) for temples, A.V. and T.R. The word (here, but not in Act 17:24) is omitted in the R.T. In Isa 16:12. LXX. (quoted by Meyer), (plural) is used without a substantive for the “sanctuary” () of Moab. For the sentiment that the infinite God, Creator of heaven and earth, cannot be contained in a house built by the hands of men, see also 2Ch 6:18, as well as the passages above quoted. Stephen justifies himself from the charge of having spoken blasphemous words against the temple by citing Isa 66:1.
Act 7:49
The heaven for heaven, A.V.; the earth the footstool of my feet for earth is my footstool, A.V.; what manner of house for what house, A.V.
Act 7:50
Did not my hand make for hath not my hand made, A.V.
Act 7:51
Stiff–necked; hard of neck, inflexible. The word only occurs here in the New Testament. But it answers in the LXX. to the Hebrew (hard of neck); see Exo 33:3, Exo 33:5, and elsewhere. In applying this expression to his hearers, Stephen was using the identical language of Moses when he conveyed God’s rebuke to them. Considering that they professed to be standing on Moses’ side against Stephen, this must have made his words doubly cutting to them. Uncircumcised in heart; only occurs here in the New Testament, but it is found in 2 Macc. 1:51; 2:46; and in the LXX. of Exo 12:48; Jdg 14:3; 1Sa 17:26, and elsewhere for the Hebrew . The word, in its application to his Jewish audience, contains a whole volume of rebuke. They prided themselves on their circumcision, they trusted in it as a sure ground of favor in the sight of God; but all the while they were on a level with the heathen whom they despised, and were to be reckoned among the uncircumcised whom they loathed. For they were without the true circumcision, that of the heart. Here again Stephen was teaching in the exact spirit and even words of Moses and the prophets. See Lev 26:1-46. 41; Deu 10:16 (where Stephen’s two reproaches occur together); Jer 9:26; Eze 44:7; and many other passages. Compare the teaching of St. Paul (Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29; Php 3:2, Php 3:3; Col 2:11; and elsewhere).
Act 7:52
Did not persecute for have not persecuted, A.V.; killed for have slain, A.V.; righteous for just, A.V.; have now become for have been now, A.V.; betrayers for the betrayers, A.V. The close resemblance of Stephen’s words to those of our Lord recorded in Luk 13:33, Luk 13:34; Mat 5:12; Mat 23:30, Mat 23:31, Mat 23:34-37, lend some support to the tradition that he was one of the seventy, and had heard the Lord speak them. But the resemblance may have arisen from the Spirit by which he spake, “the Spirit of Christ which was in” him.
Act 7:53
Ye who received for who have received, A.V.; as it was ordained by angels for by the disposition of angels, A.V.; kept it not for hove not kept it, A.V. Ordained by angels. This phrase, thus differently rendered ( ), is one of extreme difficulty: means properly appointment,” or “ordinance,” as in Rom 13:2; and , which has a great variety of uses in the Greek of the New Testament, means “at,” or “upon,” or “on the occasion of,” as Mat 12:41, “At the preaching of Jonah.” So here they received the Law “at” or “on the occasion of,” the “ordering” or “appointing” of angels. When the angels, who were commissioned by God and spoke in his Name, gave the Law, the Israelites so received it. The A.V., “by the disposition of angels” very nearly expresses the true sense. Another sense of “in view of”comes to nearly the same thing. St. Paul speaks of the part taken by the angels in the giving of the Law, and in language strikingly resembling the text. He says of it, that it was “ordained through [‘by,’ A V] angels” God ordained or appointed the Law, but the angels were the instruments or ministers of its promulgation. And it is also distinctly referred to in Deu 33:2, where the LXX. read, “On his right hand the angels were with him.” In the foregoing verses the application which Stephen had all through been contemplating is hurled with accumulated force at the consciences of his hearers, and cuts them to the heart, but does not bring them to repentance.
Act 7:54
Now when for when, A.V. They were cut to the heart (see Act 5:33 and notes).
Act 7:55
Looked up steadfastly (); see Act 6:15; Act 3:4, and note. The glory of God; i.e. the visible glory which surrounds and proclaims God’s near presence (see Exo 24:10, Exo 24:16, Exo 24:17; Isa 6:1-3; Eze 1:28; Rev 21:14, Rev 21:23, etc.). Jesus standing. Sitting at the right hand of God is the usual attitude ascribed to our Lord in token of his victorious rest, and waiting for the day of judgment. Here he is seen standing, as rising to welcome his faithful martyr, and to place on his head the crown of life Rev 2:10). Whether Stephen saw these glorious things in the flesh or out of the flesh he probably knew not himself.
Act 7:56
The Son of man. Our Lord’s usual designation of himself (see Mat 8:10; Mat 26:64; etc.; and also Dan 7:13), but nowhere but here spoken of Jesus by any other.
Act 7:57
But for then, A.V.; rushed for ran, A.V. ().
Act 7:58
They cast for cast, A.V.; garments for clothes, A.V.; the feet of a young man for a young man’s feet, A.V.; named Saul for whose name was Saul, A.V. They cast. We have here the identical phrase of Luk 4:29. The witness. According to Deu 17:7, “the hands of the witnesses were to be first upon” the idolater “to put him to death.” They took off their clothes, their outer garments, so as to be free to hurl the stones at their victim with greater force. The feet of a young man. The word is found only here and in Act 20:9; Act 23:17, Act 23:18, Act 23:22; and frequently in the LXX. for the Hebrew . A man might be called a probably to the age of thirty. This appearance of Saul upon the stage of St. Luke’s narrative is an element which will soon change the whole current of the narrative, and divert it from Jerusalem to the whole earth. Nothing can be more striking than this introduction of the young man Saul to our view as an accomplice (albeit “ignorantly in unbelief”) in the martyrdom of Stephen. Who that stood there and saw him keeping the clothes of the witnesses would have imagined that he would become the foremost apostle of the faith which he sought to destroy from off the face of the earth?
Act 7:59
The Lord (in italics) for God (in italics), A.V. The A.V. is certainly not justified by the context, because the words which follow, “Lord Jesus,” show to whom the invocation was made, even to him whom he saw standing at the right hand of God. At the same time, the request, Receive my spirit, was a striking acknowledgment of the divinity of Christ. Only he who gave the spirit could receive it back again, and keep it safe unto the resurrection. Compare “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luk 23:46).
Act 7:60
Cried with a loud voice. Compare again Luk 23:46, and with Stephen’s prayer, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge, compare Luk 23:34. He fell asleep. Blessed rest after life’s toilsome day! Blessed contrast with the tumult of passion and violence which brought him down to the grave! How near, too, in his dying was that likeness to his Lord advanced, which shall be perfected at his appearing (1Jn 3:1)! “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, that they may rest from their labors, and their works do follow them.” St. Augustine attributes Saul’s conversion to the prayer of Stephen: “Si Stephanus non orasset, Ecclesia Paulum non haberet.”
HOMILETICS
Act 7:1-60
The first martyrdom.
When we look at the Lord Jesus as our Exemplar, though we are conscious that all his excellences of life and character were strictly human, and within the range of those human faculties which we possess in common with our Lord, yet are we also conscious that the transcendent perfection of his human life is what we can never reach. Our Lord’s goodness was the goodness of man, and yet it is a goodness that we never can attain to. Where his feet stood firm, our feet will slip. Where his love triumphed, ours breaks down. Where his will moved on undaunted in obedience to his Father’s will, ours faints and halts and stumbles to its fall. The temptations that he crushed, crush us; where his spirit was clear as sunlight, ours is clouded and mixed. Where he soars in glory, we are heavy with sleep; and where he wrestles in an agony of prayer, we fall asleep for sorrow. His courage, his faith, his humility, his meekness, his constancy, his patience, his firmness, his love, his zeal, his self-consecration to God, his loving obedience, his transparent truth and purity,we see them, we look upon them with adoring wonder, but when we try to imitate them, it is like trying to climb up to the stars; do what we will they are at an immeasurable distance above us, inaccessible and unapproachable. It is, therefore, a great help and encouragement to us that, besides the infinite perfection of Christ’s human nature, we have other examples of saintly men set before us in the Word of God, which we may hope to follow more closely, treading even in their very steps. The apostle, the evangelist, the martyr, the holy woman, the faithful disciple, all stand out before us on the pages of Scripture, and we ask ourselves why should not we be like them, seeing we have the same Holy Spirit which dwelt in them to sanctify us also. The chapter before us invites us to study the character of a true martyr, as exemplified in St. Stephen. The model martyr thus is
I. A WISE MAN AND ONE OF GOOD REPORT. Not an empty fanatic catching up every folly that is started, and carried away by every blast of doctrine; but a man of solid and approved wisdom, discerning things that differ, holding fast that which is good, and rejecting the pernicious error though it be the fashion of the day; one whose steady and quiet walk in the paths of godliness has earned him a good report among his neighbors. He is well spoken of because he does good quietly, and seeks not the praise of men. He is of good report because he is never hurried, into ill-advised action under the influences of temper or self-will, or the contagion of example, or any corrupt or selfish motive, but is known constantly to do the thing that is right.
II. HE IS ALSO A MAN OF HIGH SPIRITUAL ATTAINMENT. He is not only wise and upright in all his dealings with men, has not only wisdom and discretion in the affairs of this life, but, being filled with the Holy Spirit of God, he has all spiritual wisdom likewise. His enlightened reason and his elevated affections soar above the world, and are deeply engaged in the things of God and the affairs of the kingdom of Christ. lie lives a life of faith in the Son of God, who loved him and gave himself for him.
III. HIS MARTYR‘S SPIRIT DOES NOT ALLOW HIM TO LEAD A LIFE OF EASE AND INDOLENCE. He is ready at the call of the Church to undertake any office or work, however burdensome or responsible, for the good of the whole body and the comfort of the brethren. He does not seek dignity, or emolument, or the praise of men, as the price of his labor, but simply gives himself as Christ’s servant to work for Christ and for Christ’s people. Impartial, fair, equal, and kind in his administration, he soothes irritation, allays jealousy, and promotes peace and love.
IV. HIS SPIRIT KINDLES WITH HIS WORK. Being placed on a higher platform, he sees more of the spiritual wants of men around him. Having received higher gifts, he looks for wider opportunities of exercising them. Every soul won to Christ is as fuel to the flame of his love. Every victory over Satan stirs him up to war more resolutely as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. Failures do not daunt him, and success cheers him on. Nothing seems impossible with Christ on his side. Everything must be attempted which may snatch the prey from the destroyer and enlarge the kingdom of light.
V. BUT SOON THE RISING OPPOSITION OF THE ADVERSARIES OF CHRIST BARS HIS ONWARD PROGRESS. The wisdom of the world crosses swords with the wisdom of the spirit. Formalism, Pharisaism, priestcraft, superstition, self-righteousness, self-importance, ignorance, combine to resist the gracious teaching which would strip men of selfishness to clothe them with Christ. At first it is argument against argument and reasoning against reasoning. But when the sword of the Spirit begins to cut through the shield of carnal disputation, and the sword of the worldly logic becomes blunted against the martyr’s shield, and the Word of truth becomes too strong for the lying lips to answer, then begins a new form of contest. The defeated disputant throws aside his reasonings and his cavillings, and takes up the weapons of force and fraud. Prison and rack, fire and faggot, the wild beast and the sword, shall answer the arguments which were too strong for the reasoner. And how then will the martyr act? Will he be silenced and dismayed, or will he stand to his truth and die? He gathers up his courage, he looks up to God, he confronts his accusers, he lifts up his calm voice, and his speech is as the song of the dying swan. For
VI. IN THAT HOUR OF DANGER AND TRIAL HIS CLEAN AND UNTROUBLED MEMORY GATHERS UP THE TESTIMONIES TO THE TRUTH OF HIS DOCTRINE WHICH ARE SCATTERED ON THE PAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. Has he preached Jesus Christ whom they denied? Did not their fathers deny Moses their lawgiver and deliverer from Egypt? Had he said that the majestic presence of the living God was not confined to the walls of temples made with hands? Did not Isaiah say the same? Had he denounced the vanity of sacrifices and offerings when offered by uncircumcised hearts and unclean hands? Had not their prophets done so likewise? He could not retract what he had spoken according to the oracles of God. He had spoken the truth, and by the truth he would stand. But were they there to judge him? Nay, but he would judge them. They had, indeed, received the Law, but they had broken it. The Holy Ghost had spoken to them, but they had resisted him. God’s Christ had come to save them, and they had betrayed and crucified him. Let them fill up the measure of their fathers; he was ready to receive death at their hands.
VII. And then comes THE CLOSING SCENE. The faith as firm as a rock with the waves dashing upon it; the vision of invisible glories swallowing up all things in its brightness; the rapturous confession of Jesus Christ; the calm committal of his spirit to his safe keeping; the free forgiveness of his cruel murderers; the devout prayer of his parting breath; the peaceful death like an infant’s sleep; earth exchanged for heaven;and the martyrdom is complete. Complete, but not ended; for the witnessing voice is still ringing in our ears, and tells us that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that we have life through his Name.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Act 7:1-7
Living faith.
Abraham is well called “the father of the faithful;” nowhere, in the Old Testament or in the Newt do we meet with any one whose life was such an illustration of implicit trust and holy confidence in God as was his. If faith be not merely the acceptance of a creed, or the utterance of sacred phrases, or the patronage of religious institutions; if it be a living power in the soul, it will manifest itself in
I. CHEERFUL OBEDIENCE. (Act 7:2-4.) God bade Abraham leave his home and kindred, and he left them. He did not know whither he was going (Heb 11:8), but at the call of God he set forth promptly and willingly. So Matthew at the summons of the Savior (Mat 9:9). So many thousands since his day; men and women who have heard the Master say, “Go,” and they have gone, relinquishing all that is most cherished by the human heart. When God distinctly speaks to us, whatever he may bid us do, at whatever cost we may be required to obey, it behooves us to comply instantly and cheerfully.
II. TRUST IN THE DARKNESS. (Verse 5.) There is little faith in trusting God when everything is bright and hopeful. When we can see our way we can easily believe that it is the right one. Living faith shows itself when we “do not see and yet believe” (Joh 20:29). Abraham was promised the land of Canaan “for a possession,” yet God “gave him none inheritance in it.” “By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country” (Heb 11:9). This might have seemed to him as a “breach of promise” (Num 14:34) on the part of him who brought him out of Chaldaea, but he does not seem to have entertained any doubts or misgivings. Moreover, he believed that the land would be the property of his seed, though “as yet he had no child.” “By faith also he offered up Isaac,” etc. (Heb 11:17). Even in the thick darkness, when he could not see one step before him, Abraham trusted God. We profess to “walk by faith, not by sight” (2Co 5:7), but we are often fearful and doubtful when the way is clouded. But it is in the night of adversity that the star of faith must shine.
“When we in darkness walk,
Nor feel the heavenly flame,
Then is the time to trust our God
And rest upon his Name.”
III. CONFIDENCE IN THE FUTURE. (Verses 6, 7.) God told his servant that, after being in bondage four hundred years, his seed should serve him in that country. It was a long time to look forward to. But the believing patriarch rested in God and was satisfied. We are impatient if our schemes do not come to maturity in a very brief time; we cry “failure” when only a small fraction of four centuries is passed without the redemption of our hope. We are bound to remember that we “have to do” with the Eternal One. We must wait his time, whether it be a day or a thousand years.C.
Act 7:8-19
Israel and Egypt: Divine providence.
The connection of the people of God with the land of Egypt is profoundly interesting, and suggests valuable lessons for all time. We are reminded by the text of
I. THE UNDULATORY CHARACTER OF OUR HUMAN LIFE. This in the eventful experiences of Joseph (Act 7:9, Act 7:10). First rejoicing in his father’s peculiar favor, then sold into Egyptian slavery, then rising to a position of trust in the house of his master, then cast into prison, then raised to the premiership; up on the height of comfort, down into the depth of misfortune, up again on the crest of honor, then down again into the trough of shame, etc. So with Israel the man and Israel the people (Act 7:11-19). The patriarch at first in a position of relief and advantage, then in one of distress and disadvantage; the nation falling into the dark gulf of bitter bondage until raised up “with a strong hand and stretched out arm into liberty. Thus is it with men and with nations. With none does the course of things prove to be a straight line, either of ascent or of descent. It is always undulatory. Light and shadow, sweetness and bitterness, hope and fear, joy and sorrow, alternate from the cradle to the grave.
II. THE OVERRULING PROVIDENCE OF GOD. How clearly Joseph felt that his distresses had been overruled by the Divine hand, we know (Gen 50:20). We can also see how the descent into Egypt and even the long slavery in that land of bondage were a discipline which wrought ultimate good, of the most solid and enduring kind, to Israel. By the sufferings which they endured together in those broiling brickfields, under those cruel taskmasters, and to which in happier times their sons looked back with such intense emotion; by the marvelous deliverances which they experienced together in the land of the enemy and in the “great and terrible wilderness,” and of which their descendants sang with such reverence and such rapture;by these common sufferings and common mercies they were welded together as a nation, they became rich in those national memories which are a people’s strength, they became a country for which, through many a succeeding century, patriots would cheerfully risk all their hopes and proudly lay down their lives. We learn these lessons.
1. Be prepared for coming changes in circumstance. No man has a right to feel secure in anything but in a wise and holy character, in that which makes him ready for any event that may happen. At any hour human prosperity may pass into adversity, joy into sorrow, honor into shame; or at any hour straitness may be exchanged for abundance, lowliness for elevation, gloom for gladness. We all urgently need the fixed principles, the rest in God, the attachment to things eternal and Divine, the heritage in the heavenly future, which will keep us calm in the most agitating vicissitudes of earthly fortune.
2. Trust God when things are at their worst. In the first days of Egyptian slavery, and still more in Potiphar’s prison, things must have looked dark indeed to Joseph. “But God was with him” (Act 7:9, Act 7:10). It was a terrible time, too, for the children of Israel when the king “which knew not Joseph” dealt subtly with and, evil entreated them, slaying their young children at their birth (Act 7:18, Act 7:19); but God saw their affliction (Act 7:34, Act 7:35; Exo 3:7), and was preparing to send the deliverer in due time. And to the upright in any scene of disappointment and distress there will arise “light in the darkness” (Psa 112:4). Trust and wait; the longest and severest storm will pass, and the sun shine again on the waters of life.
3. Realize that God has large and long purposes in view. Jacob died far off from the promised land, but his bones were to rest there in due course, and there his children were to have a goodly heritage. It matters little what happens to us as individuals; enough if we are taking a humble share in working out his great and beneficent designs.C.
Act 7:20-39
The Divine and the human.
I. DIVINE INTERVENTION. The hand of God is sometimes visible though it is usually unseen. We see the Divine working in
(1) the creation of such a mind as that of Moses;
(2) the fashioning of such a frame as was his (Act 7:20; Heb 11:23);
(3) the deliverance of the child from the dangers of the river;
(4) his being confided to the guardianship and instruction of Pharaoh’s daughter, where he would learn “all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Act 7:22), and thus be prepared for future work. We can have no doubt as to the operation of Divine wisdom in such a case as this. May we not sayEx uno disce omnes? May we not conclude that there is the handiwork of God in all our lives, if we could but discern it; that he is directing our course; and that, though it is evidently best for us that we should not see so much of Divine intervention as to be unwisely waiting for it or injuriously dependent on it, we may console ourselves with the belief that “we are not driftwood on the wave,” but rather as noble ships which a heavenly hand is steering to the desired haven?
II. HUMAN NOBLENESS. (Act 7:23-28; see Heb 11:24-26.) It was” in Moses’ heart to visit his brethren,” and he took their cause in hand in a very practical and decisive way (Act 7:24). He may have been mistaken in the method which he adopted, but that is of very small moment. The great thing is that it was in his heart to sympathize with and succor his brethren. The temptation to become naturalized as an Egyptian must have been great indeed. High honors, great wealth, abundant gratification of the lower instincts,these prizes and pleasures, which are dear to men in general, were well within his reach. He deliberately chose to forego them all that he might play a nobler and braver part. Well has the event justified his choice. For as a rich and powerful Egyptian, he would have achieved nothing of any value to mankind; he would long ago have been forgotten; but as it is, he has rendered a service to the human race second to none that lived before the Savior, and has a name that will never die while the world has any place in its memory for its heroes and its martyrs. Not on the same splendid scale, but in the same estimable spirit, can we emulate his nobility, preferring an honorable affliction to unholy pleasure, a sacred and useful life among the lowly to ungodly distinction among the great, the service of Christ anywhere to the smiles and favors of the world.
III. DIVINE MANIFESTATION. (Act 7:30-33, Act 7:38.) God there revealed himself to the bodily senses in a wondrous form; in such form that Moses felt that, in a very unusual degree, he stood near to his Creator. Jesus Christ now manifests himself to us as he does not unto the world:
(1) in the privileges of his house and table;
(2) in the inspiration and indwelling of his Spirit;
(3) in the spiritual wonders he works in the hearts and lives of men with whom we have to do.
IV. DIVINE COMPASSION. (Act 7:34.) To the toiling and suffering Israelites God must have seemed very far away. It must have appeared to them as if he were blind to their miseries, deaf to their sighs and groans, indifferent to their wrongs. But they were mistaken. All the while he was observing and pitying them, and was ready to interpose at the right time on their behalf. When to our fainting and distrustful heart it seems as if our Divine Lord were unobservant or unmoved, we may rest assured that he sees, that he compassionates, that he holds himself ready to put forth his redeeming strength on our behalf when the hour for our deliverance has struck.
V. HUMAN INAPPRECIATIVENESS. (Act 7:35-39.) If we were to contend that the best and noblest men who have rendered the most signal and splendid service to our race are certain to be appreciated according to the height of their virtue and the value of their help, we should go in the teeth of human history. Some of the very best and wisest have been least understood, most despised and ill used. Moses, one of the very greatest, “attaining to the first three,” most eminent in privilege, in character, in accomplishment, was one “whom they refused” (Act 7:35), “whom our fathers would not obey” (Act 7:39). We may work, hoping to he appreciated and honored of men, accepting gladly and gratefully the esteem and the love they award us; but we must not build upon it as a certain recompense of our endeavor. We must be prepared to do without it, to be able to say, “I will work on, ‘though the more abundantly I love the less am I loved.'” Our true reward is in the smile of the Savior, the approval of our own heart (1Jn 3:21), the consciousness that we are serving our generation, the blessing which awaits the faithful in the land of promise.
VI. HUMAN RESEMBLANCE TO THE DIVINE. (Act 7:37.) The Christ that should come was to be “like unto” the faithful servant in the house of God (Heb 3:5). As he was to be like one of us, so we are to strive to be “like unto him.” And we may bear his image, breathe his Spirit, live his life, do in our sphere the work he did in his: “As he is, so are we in this world.” “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.”C.
Act 7:39-50
Sin and righteousness.
These verses suggest to us some thoughts on the nature and the award of sin and of righteousness.
I. THAT SIN LIES IN THE WRONG ACTION OF THE SOUL. (Act 7:39, Act 7:40.) Stephen says that the children of Israel “in their hearts turned back again into Egypt;” they were as guilty before God as if they had actually faced round and marched back into bondage. The sin was in the spirit of disloyalty and disobedience which dwelt within them. “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, blasphemies” (Mat 15:19). “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Pro 23:7). It is the secret thought, the hidden motive, the cherished purpose, the lingering desire, the burning passion, that constitutes the essence of the evil in the sight of him who looketh on the heart, and not on the outward appearance. Beneath a fair exterior some men hide a false and guilty heart; beneath a broken and faulty behavior others have a soul that is struggling on and outon to a better life, out of the entanglements of an evil but regretted and repudiated past.
II. THAT SIN‘S WORST PENALTY IS PAID IN THE SPIRITUAL DETERIORATION IN WHICH IT ENDS. (Act 7:41-43.) For their rebelliousness the children of Israel were punished by being made to wander in the wilderness, instead of being at once admitted to their inheritance; also by being subjected to the rule of foolish and faulty kings like Saul, instead of wise and righteous prophets like Samuel; also by being sent away into captivity, even “beyond Babylon.” But the worst effect of their sin was in their being led into darker and more aggravated evil. Their culpable impatience”We wot not what is become of him”led them to an act of positive idolatry: “Make us gods go before us;” and “they made a calf and offered sacrifice unto the idol;” and this act of theirs led on, in course of time, to idolatrous actions more flagrant and. heinous still (Act 7:42); and their wrong-doing culminated in the worship of Moloch, an iniquity of the very deepest dye. This is the course and penalty of sin. One wrong act leads to another and a worse; one sin to a number of transgressions; and these to a habit of iniquity; and this to a dark, baneful life and a hateful and odious character. By far the worst penalty which sin has to pay is the spiritual damage and deterioration to which it leadsthe blinded eyes of the understanding, the weakened will, the enfeebled conscience, the masterful unbridled passions, the foul soul. Suffering of body, exile, loss of worldly prospects, the death of the body,all these are nothing to this spiritual ruin.
III. THAT RIGHTEOUSNESS IS AN EARNEST ASPIRATION AND ENDEAVOUR AFTER GOD AND GOODNESS. (Act 7:44-46.) It does not consist in the possession of privilege; otherwise the fathers of the Jewish racehaving “the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness” and afterwards in the land where the Gentiles were driven out before them (Act 7:45), all things having been made “according to the fashion” which Moses had seenwould assuredly have been godly and holy men. True human righteousness is rather found in such Godward aspiration and endeavor as we find in David, the man “who found favor before God” (Act 7:46). And how came he to enjoy this Divine regard? Not because he was faultless in behaviorwe could wish he had been far less blameworthy in certain particulars than he wasbut because he strove earnestly to worship and serve God, repenting bitterly when he sinned, struggling on again with contrite spirit, continually seeking to gain God’s will from his Word, and honestly endeavoring, spite of inward imperfection and outward temptation, to do what he knew to be right. This is human goodness; not angelic purity, not flawless rectitude, but earnest seeking after the true and good, hating the evil into which it is betrayed, casting itself on Goal’s mercy for the past, facing the future with devout resolve to put away the evil thing and walk in the paths of righteousness and integrity.
IV. THAT THE CONSOLATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IS IN THE NEARNESS OF GOD TO OUR SPIRIT. (Act 7:47-50.) David was not permitted to “build an house for the Lord.” It was a deep disappointment to him, but he had a very real consolation. God was near to him everywhere. Was he not, indeed, much nearer to the father who did not build the house, than to the son who did? David might have written (if he did not), “I am continually with thee” (Psa 73:23). “The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Act 7:48), and though we do not build him costly and splendid sanctuaries, though we should be deprived of the opportunity of meeting him in his house at all, yet when we survey “all these things” his hand has made and is sustaining, we may feel that he is at our right hand, and that we stand “before the Lord.” Nay, if we be “in Christ Jesus,” we know that, though no magnificent temple can contain him, he dwells abidingly within our hearts, to sustain and to sanctify us.C.
Act 7:51-60
Illustrations.
We have some of the best and one of the worst things illustrated in this passage.
I. FAITHFULNESS FINDING UTTERANCE IN VEHEMENT REPROACH. (Act 7:51-53.) Stirred (as we suppose) by the impatient interruptions of the senators, who at this point showed themselves unwilling to listen, Stephen rebuked them in the strong and stringent language of the text. They who imagined themselves to be “the cream of the cream,” the very best specimens of the holiest people, were setting themselves to resist the gracious dealings of God, who was willing to bless them with his fullest blessing; they were resisting the “Holy Ghost” and injuring, in the worst of all ways, the people they were chosen to serve. Unqualified condemnation is sometimes the duty of the servant of God. Not often, indeed; for usually it is our wisdom and our duty to hold our feelings of indignation in check. But there are times when holy resentment should overflow in words of unmeasured indignation, when we shall not “deliver our soul” unless we denounce the wrong that has been done and warn against the evil which impends.
II. SIN IN THE MOMENT OF EXASPERATION. (Act 7:54, Act 7:57, Act 7:58.) Sometimes sin is checked and cowed by the strong voice of holy censure, and it holds its hand if not its tongue. At other times it is only driven by exasperation to say and do its very worst. So here, it
(1) yielded to frenzy;
(2) proceeded to unmannerly exhibitions of rage”they gnashed on him with their teeth;” and
(3) ended in brutal and fatal violence “they stoned him.” There is something, not only painful and horrible, but also contemptible in this resort to physical violence. It seems to say, “We cannot answer your words; we cannot resist your influence. We will do the only thing we can do; we will break your bones and draw your blood.” Such a fearful sight is sin driven to its worst. How needful to keep clear of its dominion!
III. DIVINE MANIFESTATIONS IN THE HOUR OF TRIAL. (Act 7:55, Act 7:56.) To his devoted servant in this trying hour God vouchsafed an exceptional manifestation of himself, an extraordinary proof of his Divine favor and assurance of support. We do not look for anything of this kind. But to us, if we are true and loyal to our Savior’s cause, when the time of special trial comes, our Lord will grant some tokens of his presence and of his sympathy. He will not leave us alone; he will come to us. And if the heavens be not opened, and if a vision of the Son of man be not granted us, we shall have “the comfort of the Holy Ghost,” and the strong inward assurance that he who was with Stephen at this solemn scene is laying beneath us “the everlasting arms.”
IV. CHRISTIAN MARTYRDOM AND MAGANIMITY. (Act 7:59, Act 7:60.) “They stoned Stephen and he cried Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” We can hardly conceive a nobler end than this: a man sealing his testimony to Christian truth, with his life-bleed, and with his last breath praying for mercy to be granted to his murderers. To few of us is it thus given,” not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.” But in the course of every Christian life there are offered many opportunities of
(1) showing the martyr spirit, and of
(2) acting in the spirit of large-heartedness. Though we may gain no applause for so doing, and expect no notice to be taken of it by any chronicler, we may remember that “great is our reward in heaven,” that we have the approval of the Divine Master, when in any sphere and in any degree we cheerfully “bear his reproach” and show a generous spirit toward those who do us wrong.
V. A CHRISTIAN EXODUS. (Act 7:59, Act 7:60.) In the midst of such agitating scenes Stephen was perfectly trustful; he said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” In the midst of such tumult he was calm; it seemed natural to the historian to write of his death as if he were going to rest” he fell asleep.” We often look on to the time of our departure, and perhaps wonder what will be the manner of our “going out into the light.” If we nourish our faith in Christ as we have the means of doing, by use of sacred privilege and seizure of manifold opportunity, then when the end shall come, in whatsoever form it may appear, our hearts will be
(1) trustful in our Divine Saviorwe shall tranquilly resign our spirits to his charge, as into the hands of our Almighty Friend;
(2) peacefulour death will be to us as a pleasant sleep. Weary with the toil and strife of earth, we shall lie down to die as those who commit themselves to the darkness of the night, to the restfulness of the couch, in sweet assurance that the eyes which close on this side the grave will open on the other side, to be filled with the light and to behold the glories of immortality. Live in Christ, and you will die in reverent confidence and unbroken serenity of soul.C.
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON
Act 7:1-17
Stephen’s address: lessons of the patriarchal time.
Stephen’s view of Jesus and his mission rests, as every sound and thoughtful view must do, on the whole past history of the nationas a nation called to a spiritual destiny in the purposes of God.
I. THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL IS ROOTED IN DIVINE REVELATION. Her God is the “God of glory.” Power, holiness, perfect freedom, are included in this idea of the “glorious God.” History is a Divine revelation, because it unfolds his counsel. In times of doubt the rulers of a nation, the guides of a community, should retrace the past to its beginnings, for a Divine idea lies at the basis of the national life and of every sacred institution.
1. The self-revelation of God to Abraham. Every new epoch in religious history starts with a fresh self-revelation of the spiritual nature and attributes of the glorious God. Amidst idolatrous scenes, the depths of Abraham’s spirit were stirred, and a light from above shone in. From idols, from Sabaean fetish-worship, he turned, “to serve the living and the true God.”
2. The call to Abraham. He was to be the reformer of religion, the founder of a nation, whose life was to root itself in the acknowledgment of a living and a holy, spiritual Being as their God.
(1) Such calls involve ever sacrifice. Home must be quitted; its loved associations in fancy and feeling torn up; kindred left behind. It is the type of those moral changes and those consequent sacrifices which accompany God’s call to souls at every time.
(2) They involve the exercise of faith. Future good, in the shape of a new home and land, are promised to the patriarch, but the when and the how of their possession are leftas we say to imagination; as the Bible says, to faith. “He went out, not knowing whither he went.” It has been said that life is an education by means of “illusions;” were it not better to say that life is an education by means of ideals? They are of their nature future, indefinite, must be left for time to unfold, as with the prospect of good vaguely shadowed forth before the mind of Abraham.
(3) They require unquestioning obedience. Such was that of Abraham. He had nothing to rely on but the promise of God; all else was against him. When he came to the “land,” he found no inheritance in it, no resting-place for his foot. Spiritual trials consist in the perplexity of the will, caused by the contradiction between the unseen truth and the opposition of appearances to it. Facts stubbornly resist our ideals; the world, perhaps, scoffs at the ideals themselves. To “endure as seeing him who is invisible,” is part of the certain calling, and at the same time the high joy, of the called soul. And faithfulness is certain to know repetitions and confirmations of the assuringpromise.
(4) The light of promise ever leads, on. It is to be remarked that the Divine forecast of the future is not of unmixed brightness. A sorrow and a struggle for the young nation is to prepare for its enjoyment of freedom. It is to be cradled and rocked in slavery. By the stern and cruel knowledge in itself of the tyrant’s oppression, Israel will learn to fly to Jehovah its Deliverer, and find in his service emancipation from every secular yoke.
(5) Divine institutions confirm Divine promises. Israel had its peculiar sacramental institution of circumcision. A sacrament is a species of religious language, the more impressive because addressed to the eye than merely to the ear. In it an act of God and an act of man are expressed; surrender on the side of man, acceptance and blessing on the side of God. Thus the sacrament becomes the channel of tradition; the tribe and the nation have a common and visible bond of union. Such were the Divine beginnings of Israel’s life.
II. THE STONY OF JOSEPH. His career was in many points typical of that of Jesus.
1. He was the object of envy and unnatural hatred on the part of his brethren. So was Jesus envied and hated by the rulers of the nation, and on the like groundsthe manifest favor of God which was with him. Such is the lawsuperior spiritual energy at first arouses opposition (2Ti 3:12). And especially from those nearest of kin (Mat 10:36). Such, too, was the experience of Jesus. Nothing is more painful to the heart than to see one, hitherto supposed an equal, rising to eminence above our heads. The best will suffer from jealousy; how much more those whose evil is thus set in the light of contrast, exposed and condemned!
2. But he enjoyed Divine compensations. “God was with him,” “delivered him from all his troubles,” imparted to him grace and wisdom in the presence of the earthly great. So was it with Jesus. Hate and envy may be defied by force or intellect; but better is it when the envious and hateful are themselves revealed in their hideousness by the bright shining of God’s grace upon the good man’s life.
3. Again, the wrath of men is often made the instrument of good to them. The force which would undermine is made to exalt. Joseph becomes prime minister to Pharaoh; the crucified Jesus is, through his cross, exalted to be Prince and. Savior.
4. The living soul will find an opportunity of overcoming evil with good. The famine in Canaan gave Joseph the opportunity of a glorious revenge. The account of his recognition of his brothers, and forgiveness of them, is most touching and rich in typical suggestiveness. Those who love allegories may find much food for fancy in the details. Those who prefer broad spiritual lessons may also find in the figure of Joseph the very ideal of the gentle side of Israel’s national character, which was fulfilled in the suffering Savior, who triumphs over his foes by the might of forgiving love.
5. The result of the chain of events. The settlement of Israel in Egypt. How strangely is the web of destiny spun! How deeply laid the train of causes and effects which result in great histories and revolutions! Any course of events is highly improbable beforehand, which after it has taken place unfolds a providential logic and profound design. So with Christianity Nothing can seem beforehand more improbable than the whole story of its foundation. At Athens the story of the crucified One was folly, and at Jerusalem a scandal. Yet in it lay hidden the wisdom and the power of God. Hatred to Joseph was the first moving spring of a long religious history and triumph Hatred to Jesus was now being proved the spring of his triumph and the mighty prevalence of his religion. God works through the evil passions of men as well as through the good; and all powers in rivalry with love must sooner or later be brought submissively to follow in the wake of her eternal progress of blessing. In humiliation and in exaltation Joseph presents a lively type of Jesus. And the Sanhedrim must have felt this as they listened to the old familiar story of the origin of the nation. They are face to face with the fact of a new origin. Will they learn the lesson of the past for the present? Do we learn the lessons of the past for our present?J.
Act 7:17-29
Israel in Egypt: the rise of Moses.
We may view these events as typical of the Christian time or as expressive of an inner meaning, a Divine logic of history. We may learn, then, from this passage
I. THAT DIVINE BEGINNINGS IN HISTORY ARE NEVER WITHOUT STRUGGLES, The people grew and increased, but a sudden check was given to their prosperity by the accession of a new king. Israel might have settled in Egypt and have achieved no great thing for the world, had not persecution compelled her to struggle for existence and for liberty. Times of national danger throw the nation back upon its true consciousness. They vivify and purify that consciousness. It was England’s struggle against a tyrant two centuries and a half ago which made England. So the War of Independence made America into a nation. The truth applies to the individual also. We may depend upon it that permanent good must sooner or later be struggled foreither that it may be gained, or, if gained, that it may be kept.
II. THAT THE EXTREME HOUR OF HUMAN NEED IS THE HOUR FOR DIVINE INTERPOSITION; or, man’s extremity is God’s opportunity. “When the tale of bricks is full,” says the proverb, “then comes Moses.” Great stirrings among the people, movements towards liberty and purity of religion, seem to produce at the right moment the patriotic leader and the reformer. When the hour comes the man is not wanting. It may be argued that until the leader appears the movement is not ripe. God reveals his will for change in the words and work of great men.
III. THE SIGNIFICANT PERSONALITY OF GREAT MEN. The child was divinely fair. He was wonderfully preserved from death; rescued by the very daughter of the persecutor, and cradled in the very house of his foes. His education among one of the most richly civilized of ancient peoples was complete; and the influence of his person was most commanding. God does not bestow such graces for nothing. Whenever we see such a one marked out by beauty, knowledge, intellectual power above his fellows, we are entitled to askWhat is his significance for the world? What does God mean to do with him for the good of mankind? Again, the life-ideas in such great men are often of slow ripening. Not till he was forty years of age did his thoughts turn to the condition of his nation, and the delivering purpose come to fruit in his heart. Some men conceive much earlier the ambition and the call of their life, and move toward the goal with extraordinary velocity and energy. Others appear to be long dormant, like the oak that tarries to put forth its leaf in the woodland. Great careers have been run, great works achieved, by the age of thirty-seven: Alexander, Raphael, Byron, arc well-known examples. Cromwell, on the other hand, was about the age of Moses when God called him from the fens of Huntingdon to save our nation. The age matters little; men in this respect resemble plants”Ripeness is all.”
IV. GREAT TRAINS OF EVENTS SPRING FROM SLIGHT VISIBLE CAUSES. A single spark is sufficient to fire the train of powder which is to explode the mine. When the mind is full of an idea, a trifling circumstance may stimulate all its energies to action. A forming purpose waits only for the decisive action to fix and crystallize it. Thus the act of Moses in delivering the individual Israelite from his oppressor fixed him in his national design. In everything let us follow the lead of God. Let us remember that we are here first to be acted upon by him, that we may then act from him upon others. If we are really in earnest, the opportunity will never be wanting. God makes his servants ready for great enterprises by first inspiring them for lesser duties. The large and distant project may hold the mere visionary’s view; but the practical and really useful man begins with his neighbor next door. The man who actually helps his friend in need is the man who may be trusted to help a community or a nation. But how many dreamers are there whose projects of amelioration begin and end with eloquent speeches or articles in newspapers! The old lesson comes back from Moses’ life to all who would do and be something in the world: “Do the thing that lies nearest to thee; the second will have already become clearer.”
V. MOSES EXAMPLE WAS THAT OF LOYALTY UNDER MISCONCEPTION. There is much pathos in the simple word that he thought his brethren understood that God was delivering them by his band; but they did not understand. So mighty is the strength derived from the sympathy of numbers, the common soldier becomes a hero at its electric touch. So chilling is misconception and want of sympathy on the part of friends, it damps the spirit of the Heaven-born leader. For this reason, when we sift the examples of moral courage presented by any time, those are the bravest and the greatest, and most prove their call of God, who show that they can go on, if needs be, not merely in spite of their open enemies, but in spite of their friends. The misconstruction of friends will be most felt when the action is in the conscience known to be most disinterested and sincere. Moses aims to reconcile contending brethren; unity among themselves is now above all necessary. His action is misconstrued as ambition (Act 7:28). Thus does the sick man turn on the kindly physician, the subject on his prince, the slave on his deliverer. Man often ignores the day of his salvation. Moses, like his great Antitype, was baffled in his saving designs by the ignorance and folly of those who would not be blessed. But he simply uses prudence and waits for a future opportunity. We can hardly construe the flight of Moses otherwise than as an act of prudence. He saw his life and with it his design endangered. To have remained would have been foolhardiness, often confounded with true courage. He took the course of prudence, which is the course of the higher courage. Far easier to rush on an heroic death than to nourish a noble purpose under disappointment, solitude, and exile. The history of a nation’s greatness is summed up in that of its great men. And in the life trials and struggles of great men God reveals himself from age to age as the persevering, unvanquishable, and loving Savior of mankind. His undying purpose, manifested in all his heroes, is to set us free; and this in the knowledge of him and obedience to his laws.J.
Act 7:30-34
The call of Moses.
I. THE MESSAGE BY FIRE. Fire is the sign of the presence of Jehovah. It denotes spiritual agency in its intensity. Fire penetrates and it purifies. It is, therefore, inimical to evil and conservative of good. Darkness of mystery is round about God, and when he comes forth from it to reveal himself to men it is in the form of fire. It is an emblem of the Holy Spirit. In the bosoms of men he glows, and the musing poet bursts forth into inspired song, and the prophet into “words that burn and thoughts that breathe of truth and power.” When we ask that God will answer us by fire, we ask that be will make known his presence in the most vivid manner in feeling, and with the most mighty effect on the life. Specially the vision of the burning bush was a type of Israel unconsumed notwithstanding its fierce persecution in Egypt; of the glory of his great Representative, the Messiaha bright flame springing from the lowly bush; of the Church amidst its age long conflicts and trials; lastly, of all truth, which “like a torch, the more it’s shook, it shines;” the more the breezes of controversy blow about it, the purer and clearer its illumination.
II. THE LIVING VOICE OF THE ETERNAL. The sense of hearing as well as that of sight is addressed. So ever in the disclosures of the Divine. What we have felt in part through the hearing of the car is illustrated and confirmed by the evidence of the more skeptical organ, the eye. Or what we have witnessed with a certainty not to be gainsaid, in actual fact is presently interpreted and connected with the great principle to which it belongs by some similar voice of teaching. The utterance here is simple. It is a declaration that the God of history is the ever-present God. He who was with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob is here with Moses. Faith has always its past to fall back upon; it can renew its life in moments of weakness out of the living fount of memory.
III. THE WONDER AND THE TERROR OF THE DIVINE PRESENCE. First, Moses wonders at the burning bush. Wonder is the reflection in feeling of the extraordinary, and it is the parent of curiosity. Why and whence, the spirit asks, this irruption into the course of nature? It is the appearance of the living God, is the only answer to the question. Here wonder passes into fear and trembling, which betray man’s sense of utter dependence in the presence of the Almighty and the All-holy. The sight of the unspeakable glory is shrunk from. In ordinary life nature and custom conceal God, and mercifully; for how could one glimpse of absolute truth, of Divine perfection, be endured? But terror passes into reverence, which is the blending of fear with love and confidence as the mind becomes more inured to the experience. The sandals are thrown off, as in the presence of an august sovereign. How good to feel that nature, the daily scene of a wondrous drama, the occasional theatre of magnificent spectacles, as in the tempest, the thunder-voices and fiery revelation betokening the presence of creative might,is holy ground! But the mind becomes deadened by custom. And well is it, therefore, that in those places specially consecrated to meetings with Godthe church, the private oratoryhabits of outward submission and reverence should be cultivated which may have their right influence on the whole moods of the soul.
IV. THE CALL.
1. The call of man by God is ever to service on behalf of the suffering. All human suffering has an echo in the heart of God. He is the God of all compassion. He is not merely love, but love as an active will. He determines to save. Now it is a nation from outward captivity, now a generation from bondage to ignorance and fear. Light and health are the images of his energy and influence.
2. The called man is a man sent. He has a mission, and it is ever a mission to the lowly and the meek. So has it been with all the great prophets; so above all with the Christ. “I send thee into Egypt.” “Where lies the Egypt to which I am sent, and where the fulfillment of my life-call must lie?” the Christian may ask. John Howard found his Egypt in the prisons of Europe, and “trod an open but unfrequented path to immortality.” Our Egypt may be close at hand. Wherever we see an obsolete custom, a corrupt habit of thought, an ignorance of any kind, a spell laid upon the imagination, or a vice tyrannizing over the will of others, there is a house of bondage. God needs the co-operation of many finite deliverers that his design of an infinite deliverance may go forward. If we, like Moses and like Elijah and Isaiah, are ready with our “Here am I; send me,” it will not be long before we receive our directions and our marching orders.J.
Act 7:35-43
Moses, and Israel’s bearing towards him: a figure of Christ.
I. THE REJECTED OF MEN WAS IN EACH CASE THE HONOURED OF GOD. The Israelites refused Moses as their ruler and judge; and God sent him as ruler and as emancipator to the people. Moses went into exile, and there was honored by a revelation of the glory of God; and with a special mission Jesus had been slain in Jerusalem, and in that very city had come back in the power of the Spirit, to clothe the disciples with fiery eloquence, to vibrate through their hearts with power, and to put forth mighty power to heal through their meansthus being proved Leader and Savior of the people. Human blindness and folly only bring a new reaction of the power and mercy of God. So often with us all. We resist the leading thoughts of the day. We hate the new truth which brings change with it, the fresh revelation which calls us to larger freedom. We think to silence the new teacher by contempt. But lo! in some unexpected quarter power breaks forth to seal the teacher and his message, and we are silenced.
II. THE CAREER OF MOSES AND THE CORRESPONDENCE IN THAT OF CHRIST. Grandly the figure of the desert lawgiver rises before us in the sketch of Stephen.
1. His mighty works. Those in Egypt, when he outdid the profound magicians, and established the supremacy of Jehovah over Pharaoh and all the gods of Egypt, were one of the originating causes of Israel’s freedom. The memory of those deeds lived in the heart, could never be forgotten. They laid the foundation stones of the great structure of their history. So did Jesus lay the foundation of his kingdom in works, the power of which and the purport of which he could appeal to as evidence of his Divine mission.
2. His prophetic forecast and its fulfillment. The memorable prophecy of the great Teacher to come, found in the Book of Deuteronomy, was one of Israel’s lights shining in a dark place. Though Stephen does not identify the prophet to come with Jesus in so many words, his meaning is evident to all the Sanhedrim. Was there a hint in that prediction which was wanting in the actual character of Jesus? And if the Sanhedrim had rejected him, how could they fail to incur the judgment threatened in that great passage of the Law? Some of the later parables of Jesus (as that of the wicked husbandmen) were also, perhaps, fresh in the recollection of many. Thus did the lines of ancient and recent evidence converge upon the present, and give to it a solemn significance.
3. The renewed contrast of the divinely accepted and the humanly rejected. (Verses 38, 39.) Moses was the channel of ancient revelation. He received loving words to give to the people. And Jesus had said that the words he spake were not his, but the words of him that sent him. Yet Israel in the desert and Israel now were found alike unwilling to obey. The Divine presence was manifestly with Moses. In the desert the angel of God was ever at his side. So had it been with Jesus. Had not one of this very Sanhedrim confessed to Jesus that God must be with him, seeing the works that he did? Yet both Moses and Jesus had been rejected. And in both cases, when the voice of God said, “Forward!” the heart of Israel turned back. In the one case they longed for the comfort and the luxury of Egypt, in the other for the sensual joys of an earthly kingdom. Better to retain power and position than to go on the idle chase after the ideal and the spiritual; so the low mind, the carnal heart, argues in every age. It was the choice of the flesh and the denial of the Spirit that was in each case the cure of the sin, as it is everywhere and always.
4. The lapse into idolatry. The worship of a visible form is far easier than the lifting of the spirit to an invisible God. Idolatry is the making to one’s self a god; spiritual religion is the constant exertion to rise to him who cannot be reproduced in finite forms of the intelligence or of art. The element of self-denial or of self-pleasing predominates in each and every form of worship. An upward and a downward movement is always proceeding in the religious life of a people. Some are ever trying to bring God into the service of their passions and interests; while true religion tries to mould all life into conformity with God’s will. Idolatry brings penal consequences. Men are given up to their hearts’ desire. The moral nerve decays. Spiritual energy being lost, they become weak in the presence of their enemies. Those touches of reminiscence from the past were enough to touch tender chords in the minds of Stephen’s hearers. Well they knew idolatry had been the curse of the nation. Defeat, slavery, exile,all came in its train. All might be traced back to the bitter root of disobedience, as that to unbelief in the living God. And what if now a similar vista of calamity were opening; if history were to repeat itself, and disobedience to the voice from heaven in Jesus should lead to a final downfall? Our history mirrors our sins and our mistakes. If we do not heed its warnings, nothing can avert our fate. No act of disobedience to conscience has passed unpunished in our lives. The worst of madness is deliberately to repeat old errors and stereotype our moral failures. If the ghosts of the past, as they appear in memory and reflection, do not deter us, what will or can?J.
Act 7:44-53
Lessons of sacred history.
I. THE SACRED PLACES OF ISRAEL.
1. The tabernacle. It was the tent of witness or of attestation; otherwise the “tabernacle of the assembly,” or of the congregation. It was the visible center of Israel’s natural and spiritual life, the hearth and home of the people and the altar of God. He met with them to declare his will, to make known his laws, and they with one another as a community having a common weal. Religion is the true foundation of society. She is the” oldest and holiest tradition of the earth.” When a house of God is erected in the wilds of Australia or of America, a center of civilization is fixed. It is the earthly representation of a heavenly reality. Moses made the tabernacle after a Divine archetype or model given to him. So worship on earth must ever aspire to and reflect the “life above,” the risen life, the life of spiritual freedom and victory. God is ever saying to new societies, as to the new society in the desert, “Make me a house after the pattern you have seen;” that is, have a place and a recognition in your life for the holiest ideals, the most sacred purposes of life.
2. The temple. Both the tabernacle and the temple were designed and constructed after the analogy of human dwellings; the tabernacle was but a more richly furnished tent. As the wealth and power of the nation increased, it was fitting that this should be reflected in the greater magnificence of the house of God; and as they became settled in the Holy Land, that the tent of the nomad should give way to the palace of a King. The temple of Solomon represented in its magnificence the greatness of the victorious kingdom of David. The outward institutions of religion in a people should keep pace with its growth in material prosperity. It is miserable that the church should be worse furnished than the ordinary dwellings of the worshippers, or that the minister of religion should fare in poverty while he supplies their spiritual wants. A rich man can surely afford to contribute as much to the pastor’s necessities as he pays in stipend to his cook. But there are higher truths. The tabernacle passed away; the temple, as Stephen had predicted, was to pass away; the spiritual verities eternally remain.
II. THE TRUE SACRED PLACE IS EVER THE SOUL OF MAN.
1. The dwelling of God in visible temples is a symbolic thought, the reality to which it points is his intercourse with the soul of man. This was the great truth of prophetic teaching. The prophets were themselves living illustrations of it. God dwelt in them, spake through them, breathed upon them, turned their hearts unto his shrine, communed with them face to face, as a man with his friend. “The true Shechinah is man,” said a great Father of the Church.
2. It is the spiritual indwelling which is at the heart of all true religion. When it is once grasped, great consequences follow. The priest and the ritual and the fixed place are no longer necessary. Every one who has a truth from God, and feels that it must be spoken, is a prophet. New oracles may be opened at any moment, new witnesses may arise, the truth find a fresh utterance from unexpected lips. If this truth be not recognized, the sacred building becomes an empty shell, the priests mere mummers, the ritual a pantomime. To believe that God can care for splendid temples and ritual, for themselves, is imbecile superstition. To believe that he values all the expressions of living and loyal hearts is a part of rational piety. But at the highest point of religious intelligence it may be well asked, “What need of temple, when the walls of the world are that?”
3. The denial of the spiritual truth is the source of error, superstition, and crime. The earlier Jews killed the prophets, leaving posterity to find out their value and raise their monuments. Posterity did the like. The very men who waved the torch of truth more brightly in darkened ages, and those who had the best news to toll their times, were silenced and suppressed. The culmination of all was the betrayal and murder of Jesus. Such a story of miserable persecution and suicidal hatred of the good carries its deep and permanent warnings. How dishonest if we take occasion from this passage to form an idle opinion of the peculiar bigotry of the Jews! Was ever a corporation, a body with vested interests, or a Church, known to act otherwise towards the new truth and the new teacher? Has any great teacher in the Christian Church been received at first with welcome and owned as “sent from God”? Grudging toleration is the most he can expect. Only those who know that religion is an affair of the individual soul, not of the Church or the formal confession, will welcome him in whom religion now embodies itself, and through whom, in the decay of systems, God speaks with freshness and power to the world.J.
Act 7:54-60
The martyrdom of Stephen.
I. THE RAGE OF CONVICTED CONSCIENCES. Pierced to the heart with the pain of the sense of guilt, though judges, they gnashed with their teeth upon Stephen, “like chained dogs who would bite those who would set them free.“ “Contempt pierces through the shell of the tortoise, says the Indian proverb. On their high seat they were reached by the stinging words of the servant of Jesus; their obstinacy exposed, the contradiction between the part they were playing as the representatives of the Law and outwardly, while their spirit and aims were deadly opposed to its spirit, brought into the most glowing light. The most hellish of wrath is that where the mind is felt to be at variance with itself and seeks a victim on which to discharge its fury. If the truth does not convert men, it turns them into its foes.
II. THE INNER JOY OF THE MARTYR. The martyr is he whose life-interests are bound up with the truth, to whom nothing in the world can afford satisfaction in which truth and reality are not. He cannot separate his consciousness of life and its sweetness from his consciousness of God’s light and love in him, which are dearer than life. With this clear light within his breast, he” sits in the center and enjoys clear day.” “No greater thing can man receive, no more august boon can God bestow, than truth,” said one of the noblest of heathen writers, Plutarch. This is the feeling in which the martyr lives, in which he is willing to die. And he may be and doubtless is often favored with peculiar visions, which foretell the triumph of truth and of faith. Stephen sees the heaven opened, and the crucified One, the “Son of man,” standing in the place of glory and power, at God’s right hand. There are secrets in the life of individual piety which if known, might go far to explain the cheerfulness with which privation or persecution has been borne. God opens an inner door into heaven to others inaccessible, and speaks of things, which cannot be uttered, and offers visions, which cannot be described. We know little more than the outside of others’ lives. The bad man in power, the good man in weakness and suffering, each has another side to his life.
III. CONVICTION STIFLED IS VIOLENCE. Here are two resources of hypocrisy.
1. To pretend indignation against the person of an opponent. It is easy to feign a pious horror of sentiments we do not care to examine, and to cast obliquely the reproach of blasphemy upon one who utters truths which are evil in their bearing upon us, Jesus, Stephen, Paul, and in their turn all reformers, have had to incur this reproach.
2. To end the matter by violence. Cast the offender out of the synagogue; hand him over to the civil power; or put him to death under the show of law and justice. So was Stephen done to death. The worst crimes have been done in the name of law and under the cloak of religion.
IV. THE MARTYR‘S END. In many features it repeats that of the Master.
1. Stephen is thrust out of the city, like him who suffered “without the gate.” Nor can any man expect to live at all places and times the true life, without having to suffer some form of social expulsion. In suffering for our convictions we come to know the deeper fellowship of the spirit of Jesus. Better to go with Jesus “without the gate “and suffer, than to tarry within the city and to purchase ease at the expense of compliance with evil.
2. Life is yielded up in prayer. As he had sighed, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit,” so his servant, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” As he,” Father, forgive them,” so Stephen, “Lay not this sin to their charge.” Love, the animating principle of the Christian in life,, the secret energy which prompts all, his words and deeds, in the cause of truth,love is the temper in which he dies. Christ s religion, in teaching us this love and making its practice possible, proves itself Divine. And this active love is rooted in the sense that we have been loved and sought of God. He who has once found us and blessed us with fatherly hand, gives courage for struggle and resignation in defeat.
3. The effect on others. We think of the young man Saul who stood by. What effect upon him had not this spectacle of love in death? And what evidence amidst wild scenes of savage life has not the end of the good man blessing, not cursing his foes, given to the love of God and what it can accomplish in the human heart! The red Indian, as he binds his captive to
. The circumcision of the Old Testament was declared worthless in view of the new circumcision of the “heart and ears,” otherwise the sign of the new covenant, the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Although evidently broken off by the murderous riot which ensued, the address was advancing to an appeal to faith on the basis of the new outpouring of the Spirit: “Now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation.” A great example to us to lead men through conviction of sin to acceptance of gracethrough the sense of what they are to the hope of what they may be in Christ.R.
Act 7:54-60
The proto-martyr.
I. An EXAMPLE.
1. Distinguished faith overcoming the world, the flesh, the wicked one.
2. Spiritual vision. Heaven opened. New world under the government of Christ.
3. Patience and love, after the example of Jesus. The influence of Christ’s martyrdom on all other martyrs. The sermon on the mount exemplified.
II. A new Divine SEAL upon the truth.
1. Sufferings and death in their relation to testimony. Necessity of martyrdom in a world like ours. Effect on the popular mind.
2. Contrast of the old and the new in the scene. The weakness of the persecutors, the strength of the persecuted. The two kingdoms must be set face to face. Righteousness against falsehood and violence. Argument is renounced, therefore the martyr’s death is a public exhibition of the enemy’s weakness; he is compelled to resort to violence. Show that all through Church history this is the case. The conversion of Constantine quickly followed the persecution of Diocletian. The cruelty of Rome brought about a reaction in the popular mind which paved the way for the Reformation.
3. In every darkest hour of God’s people there is some point of light which holds the future within it. Saul is in that scene. His conversion partly the fruit of it. The Spirit began to work, goading him with conviction. So the blood of martyrs has always seed of truth to water: the blood of Stephen watered conviction in Saul’s heart.
4. A wonderful testimony to the reality of the work of the Spirit. How the signs increased. From the gifts of Pentecost to this manifestation of Divine glory to a dying man, calling upon Jesus to receive his spirit, and so confirming, as with a light coming down directly out of heaven, all the facts of the gospela risen and glorified Redeemer, able to forgive sins, receiving the spirits of his disciples into heaven, giving them complete victory over the sufferings and darkness of their last hour. May we die the death of the righteous!R.
HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER
Act 7:1-53
The recital of a nation’s spiritual pedigreeits leading suggestions.
Technically the description of a defense may very justly be applied to the long stretch of these verses. They no doubt do stand for Stephen’s formal defense. He has been very mildly challenged by the high priest to say whether the “things” laid to his charge “are so.” And he loses not a minute in replying. He replies, however, in his own way. That way is somewhat indirect. His tone betrays some sense of his being in some sense also master of the situation. He tempts us much to feel that much may be read between the lines, and we soon come to convince ourselves that the real drift of the personal defense is laid on the lines of a national indictmentand that national indictment very little else than the barest recital of the pedigree of the nation in question. Stephen does not make it too apparent at firstany mere than once on a time Nathan did, when he appeared to condignly judge Davidbut he puts before himself and hearers the nation of Israel as it now is, and takes in hand to say what it came from and along what way it has come to this present. The places of judge and judged almost seem turned, both in the matter and the manner of Stephen. It is very possible that (as Stephen never lived to put in writing nor to repeat what he now said) there is some disjointedness in the language as it is now before us, and some lacunoe, and (though many doubt the suggestion) that interruptions, especially just at the close, determined the form of some parts of Stephen’s strong accusation. On the other hand, we have to remember that probably nowhere do we read language fresher from the dictate of the Holy Spirit. The recital of the spiritual lineage of this nation reveals
I. A SERIES OF PROVIDENTIAL INTERPOSITIONS OF THE MOST MARKED CHARACTER.
These occur in more shapes than one.
1. There is the originating sovereign choice and sovereign call of Abraham (Act 7:2).
2. The express command to him whither he is to go and where awhile to dwell (Act 7:3).
3. Express promises vouchsafed to him and his seed, and covenant, made with him (Act 7:6-8).
4. An unfailing, providential guidance of him and his linear descendants, Isaac and Jacob and Joseph. This name Joseph does not fail to lead Stephen to recite
(1) the providence that wonderfully overruled the worst of the work of envy;
(2) the providence that exalted Joseph, an alien, to Egypt’s highest place;
(3) the providence that was aiming at and that did secure the more remote result of settling awhile the nation in Egypt.
5. The providential saving of the life of the infant Moses, educating of him, endowing him with a spirit of both goodness and power, preparing him well by chastening delay and discipline, and finally calling him to see and know and take up his mission, after an interval of forty years (Act 7:23, Act 7:30, Act 7:35). The name of Moses, again, does not fail to lead Stephen to commemorate
(1) the chief features of his work, in leading the people of Israel out of Egypt and through the Red Sea, and in his own life’s remaining forty-years wanderings with those people in the wilderness;
(2) the distinct prophecy with which his lips were charged, relating to the “Prophet,” the Messiah, the late well-known Jesus (Act 7:37);
(3) the typical “tabernacle in the wilderness,” so carefully and in minute detail designed in heaven, yet so temporary in its use for the service of the wilderness and the early settlement under Joshua in “the possession of the Gentiles”
6. By two hurried touches, the reason of which is scarcely far to find, Stephen implies rather than mentions the providence which raised up David to conceive and Solomon to execute the building of the temple (Act 6:14; verse 48); when, for whatever exact reason, the climax of the occasion is reached. The moment has come for the dropping of the mere recital of history, every step of which, however, was telling its own very plain and very significant tale. In words of flame and impassioned thrusts, the solemn, unanswerable, conscience-stinging charge is flung at the packed body of accusers and sympathizers. And the force came, not of bad spirit, but of the Spirit, the Spirit of truth and conviction, of light and life, and, when needs be, of “consuming fire.” So far Stephen’s recital of the moral lineage of the people is crowded with the tokens of providence, Nay, it is one chain of tokens of Divine love and Divine care. But on reading again the recital we find
II. A SERIES OF PERVERSE THWARTINGS AND “CONTRADICTIONS OF SINNERS,” To us the things working in the mind of Stephen are not obscure, but even to those who heard him, light must have glimmered in before the final disclosure. When this came, no man doubted what it meant nor to what it was equivalent. Not exactly side by side, and not exactly paripassu with the originating, directing, overruling, and protecting “dispositions” (verse 53) of Heaven, but certainly in many a most mournful and untoward conjuncture appeared the perverseness of human insubjection and ingratitude and presumptuous opposition. The worst growths of ingratitude sprang up where had fallen the richest showers of heavenly grace. The worst forms of resistance assorted themselves in front of the kindest and most distinguished of heavenly leading. And it had been thus too systematically. It had been so once and again, and the indications were to the effect that,” So my people love to have it.“ Thus the whole length of exceptional and most beneficent grace was disfigured by the intrusion of surprising ingratitude and rebellion; and of late, Stephen has to show, things have grown worse, nay, they are come to a climax. The seed of evil grew up into plain sight.
1. In those “patriarchs, moved with envy,” who “sold Joseph into Egypt” (verse 9).
2. In the two cases, that grew upon one another in degree of blindness, when Moses himself was so taken by surprise in that his own brethren did not perceive his mission, and that it was one for their benefit, at whatsoever risk to himself (verses 25, 28, 35).
3. In the rebellion and fickleness of Israel under “Mount Sina,” and their patent idolatry there, a career of crime, Stephen implies, which begun there never got purged out of their system, but brought on the crushing punishment of the Captivity. This was a marvelous stroke of Stephen’s just rhetoricsuggestion of the Spirit’s light and forceto run up in the compass of one sentence that initial act of idolatry into the flourishing continuation of it which both courted and caused the captivity of ever-memorable shame (verses 38-43).
4. But never so plainly, never so terribly as now; the present generation complete the circle of the evil works of their fathers. They “resist the Holy Ghost;” they are “the betrayers and murderers” of him for prophesying of whom men were both persecuted and slain by their fathers; they have not honored their own “Law,” so boasted in, in the only acceptable way of honoring it, viz. in the “keeping” of it; and they have branded themselves with the names “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and in” their very “ears.” These are the formidable interruptions to the purity, honor, nobility of their lineage. They are stains on their escutcheonsineffaceable in themselves. But even all this is as nothing, for they now drag their glory in the dust, and are for flinging it away for ever. The recital shows
III. A SERIES OF SUGGESTIVE RETRIBUTIONS. This aspect of his subject, it may be supposed, Stephen purposed to keep in some check for a time. Yet:
1. It is implied, for those who certainly well knew all the history of Joseph and his brethren, in the allusion to the exaltation of Joseph, and his brethren’s repairing to him for corn, and finally his father and family becoming as it were his permanent guests (verses 9-14).
2. It is again implied (see the manifest hint of some kind of verse 35) in the justifying of Moses’ unconscious taking up of his role as reformer and deliverer of his brethren (verses 24-26), and in the parallel condemnation of those whose blindness, not seeing it, led them to say tauntingly, “Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?”
3. It is most emphatically stated of the idolatrous Israelites. God “turned, and gave them up“ (verse 42). And the fact of this being able to be viewed either as one long-continued course of retribution or retribution frequently repeated shows that, as Stephen approaches the end of his speech, he is preparing to give greater prominence to this matter. So far, then, the striking moral features of this history consist of unparalleled opportunity, reckless disregard of it and Heaven’s own distinctest and most impressive kind of warnings. But the whole case of Stephen is not over till it is observed how he either purposely exhibits or is made the means of exhibiting
IV. THE AIM, THE USE, THE LESSONS OF THAT FAMILY LINEAGE, MADE TO BE ILLUSTRIOUS, ALL MISERABLY FORFEITED, AT LEAST FOR THE FAMILY ITSELF. For:
1. The aim and use of all, if they had not been absolutely lost, would have obviated the necessity of any defense at all on the part of Stephen; and in particular would have rendered unnecessary his allusion to David, to Solomon, and to the nature of the dwelling-place of the “Most High,” as also his quotation of the prophet’s rapt, inspired, and foreseeing language (verses 46-50). It seems evident that Stephen was far from being supremely anxious on the subject of his own personal defense; he is bent on something fir beyond and above this. But so far as he was at all anxious about it, it was here that the point of it lay. Whatever he had said about “this place,” and about “the customs of Moses,” and about “this Jesus of Nazareth,” who had power to “destroy this temple and build it up in three days,” and who was the end and aim and substance of all “the Law and the prophets,” was near to finding its solution, for those who had “ears to hear,” at the point at which Stephen is found quoting that prophet (verse 50). But all was lost on those whose nation had been educating fourteen hundred years if haply they might see this very thing and not lose it.
2. The lessons of a moral and individual nature are now to be yet more shown spilled on the ground. Yes, spilled, as Stephen’s blood itself was spilled. Instead of having learnt or now learning, they are “cut to the heart;” they gnash with their teeth; they cry out with a loud voice; they stop their ears; they run upon Stephen with one accord; they cast him out of the city; they stone him. It was the evening of hope for many of that audience when Stephen began to speak. When he has ended evening has declined into a mournful, dark, despairful night. A hundred times they have been warned in their own family history, and their fathers cry to them from the very tombs. But what can they hear who “stop their ears “? And what can any hear who do likewise?B.
Act 7:23-29
Marks of the born reformer.
Conversion does not by any means purport to create new powers of mind or to substitute new qualities of heart, but to direct aright the powers which are already the gifts of nature or creationto direct them to right and worthy objects, and to fill them with right and worthy energy. So also inspiration does not purport to override natural sources of knowledge and natural gifts, so as to obliterate the prevailing marks of individual character and even individual peculiarity. So neither, once more, do what we often call special providences purport to make the forces of native character hide themselves, and supersede them by what is artificial and in a sense even superficial, though it comes from heaven. It is, indeed, doubtful whether we have a very happy phrase in the expression “special providence. Perhaps we rather mean that providence occasionally strikes us more because it does what is unexpected or what seems to us specially remarkable for some reason or another. In any other sense, there certainly was a time when the most “special” providence might have seemed to be found in the fact that “not a sparrow falleth to the ground without” God’s “notice,” or in the fact that “all the hairs of our head are numbered” of God. While, therefore, we may believe readily that Moses was “raised up” of God, “called of God,” watched over and graciously trained by the providence of God, this will none the less yield us the opportunity of observing the illustrations of the born reformer which he affords, and of noticing, for important uses, how parallel they run to those of one whom we might hesitate to describe as in any similar sense at all events “raised” or “called of God.” That we may, therefore, the more clearly feel how little of the mere made and artificial there was in Moses, we may stop and note how the very brief sketch before us reveals some of the plain marks of the born reformer, whether for the better or the less good.
I. A MOMENT ARRIVES, CHARGED WITH A STRONG IMPULSE TO FIND A NEW POINT OF DEPARTURE FOR LIFE AND WHATEVER IS ITS CHIEF MEANING.
1. The impulse comes. It “came into his heart.” It comes, and it comes very much as matter of feelingout of his heart as surely as into it.
2. It comes under some comparatively unpretentious guise. Moses has a prompting to “visit his brethren the children of Israel.” Out of sight is not out of mind with him, where it would have been so in a million of cases to one. He does not despise, forget, or ignore as much as possible poor relations. His heart is toward them, and perhaps at the time conscious of nothing else, he will “visit” them and throw in his lot with them.
3. The impulse is of uncommon strength.
(1) It asked for the decision of a moral question, and “refusing to be called” what he was not (Heb 11:24); he quickly settled that.
(2) It encountered the adopting of a lot of “affliction,” and a share of suffering, in place of pride, wealth, luxury, and power (Heb 11:25); and the choice was unhesitatingly made.
(3) It asked force and perspicuity of spiritual vision, and that far sight that can not merely see afar, but that will find “a hand to reach through time,” to catch the “far-off interest of tears “-that genuine ,’recompense of reward” (Heb 11:26).
(4) Lastly, it dares to face the wrath of a foster father king, a despot, whose will, whose whim, whose passion, whose cruelty would not stop at anything that crossed his purposes; but “they feared not” (Heb 11:27), for “he endured as seeing” the King eternal, immortal, and “invisible.” These things all help to speak a reality and a strength in the impulse, which promise well to make the prophet master of the man, and which will fit the theory of a born reformer, while yet it is matter of theory.
II. TWO SUCCEEDING DAYS REVEAL MOSESTHE ONE IN THE CAPACITY OF A WRESTLER, AND VERY SUCCESSFUL ONE; THE OTHER CLOTHING HIMSELF IN THE AUTHORITY OF A JUDGE AND ARBITER; IN BOTH CASES UNSOLICITED. His action on either day is spontaneous. It was doubtless as great a surprise to the brother he would befriend as to his adversary for the time. Yet in either case Moses steps into the various arena, as though to the manner born.
1. This stepping boldly into action is very noticeable. How wide often the gulf that separates thought, feeling, wish, conviction, and even resolution from action itself!
2. Much more significant is the stepping from Egypt’s court and palace and lap of luxury into practical conflict of this kind. It meant something unusual, and something unworldly and of the right sort unusual. It was the kind of thing to hold men who didn’t like it spell-bound for at all events twenty-four hours. It provoked the question, “From whence hath this man” this authority and these mighty deeds (Act 7:22, Act 7:28)? It meant a “new man” (Luther’s hymn) on the spot.
III. A GREAT MARK OF A BORN REFORMER APPEARS NOW IN MOSES, IN THE ABSENCE OF SELF–CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH HE BETRAYS. What he did, what he said, what he tried to work, all came to thought, heart, and hand, as things under existing circumstances the most natural in the world. He saw himself only in the light of an instrument in the hand of God, and took for granted that his brethren would see him and all else in the same light. Probably his eye did not look on himself at all at the time; probably at the time, even what “he supposed” about his brethren understanding his mission on their behalf, was an utterly unconscious supposing. For it is the historian afterwards whose language is here read, and it was probably when Moses first received a check, and was taken aback by it, that his “supposing” precipitated itself. Circumstances, opposition, persecution, do not fail soon to open the eyes of almost any reformer, specially of any reformer in matter moral, but it is of the born reformer to plunge prompt, fearless, nothing hesitating, in medias res. And Moses did just this. The pain and the smart and their useful lessons were yet to come.
IV. IT REMAINS NO POOR SIGN OF THE BORN REFORMER THAT AT FIRST MOSES OVERSTEPS THE MARK. For exceptions to this experience are few. Even in a delicious unconsciousness and simplicity and naturalness lurks that very thing nature, human nature, and too much of it; self, and too much of it. God would not have overstepped the marknever does. All his work fits perfectly to time, to place, to issue. Yet he who holds the threads of all human things in his fingers, and rules the mysterious vicissitude of human history, makes allowance beforehand for their error in his most faithful, most willing servants. Their pace must be moderated, and his purpose will not be lost, nor so much as suffer. More haste, worse speed for Mosesfor the precipitancy of two days relegates him to forty years’ absence from the scene and the holy enterprise into which he had flung himself with zeal so passionate. What will forty years do for him? What will they make of him? They will temper him, subdue much the confidence of self, and will make him more meet for the Master’s service, at the very time that he shall appear less zealous for it.B.
Act 7:54
Rebuke, and the ill fruit that comes of lust rebuke, refused.
In the brotherhood of human society there is a place for advice, for persuasion, for encouragement, for gentlest reproof, for vehement remonstrance, for beseechful expostulation, for all the energy of urgent exhortation, and for rebuke. It must be confessed, however, that the place which belongs to rebuke is far more unique in its character. Whatever it may intend, it is nothing better than the merest impertinence, except under certain very definite conditions. In connection with the ill reception, ill even to fatality, given on this occasion to the vigorous rebuke of Stephen, let us take opportunity to consider
I. THE RIGHTS AND JUST GROUNDS OF CHRISTIAN REBUKE.
1. All rebuke must mean the assertion of authority, and naturally presumes some footing of rightful authority. The rebuke of parent, of teacher, of master, of age, of experience, of knowledge, each rests on its own special authority. We are, therefore, justified in demanding the authority of Christian rebuke or what may claim to be such. And we may ask of what sort its authority professes to be.
2. While some may be prepared most unhesitatingly to answer these questions, others, and these the very persons most nearly affected by the answer, may refuse to defer to them or to accept their dicta. Still, this will not disprove the authority claimed for the exercise of Christian rebuke, nor put it in any other position than some other cases of disputed authority. The decision for such persons may be deferred till the dawn of eternity; and the person who exercises rebuke of this solemn sort must be prepared, and will readily acknowledge himself prepared, to await also the same date and abide its issue.
3. The authority of the man who honestly exercises Christian rebuke is of the same sort and in part of the same origin with that which bids him, for his own sake and for the sake of all others, “have no fellowship” whatsoever with evil, “but rather reprove” it is his native right, if he will but do this very thing, to war ceaselessly with evil. Reason might have been supposed equal to teaching this. Conscience certainly teaches it. The light of revelation, where it is possessed, says it, and the only thing remaining to clinch the rightful act of the person who rebukes is present in the fact (where least confessed) of the amen, uttered in some way or other by the conscience of the person justly rebuked. The honest Christian rebuke claims to rebuke that which is bane, misery, curse, to all the world; which, because it is the duty of every one to discountenance and do his best to destroy it, infers no presumptuousness in the few who do this, but does infer laches, and most criminal laches, in those who do it not. Men may doubt, disbelieve, deny the written authority of revelation, and are answerable for the consequences of doing so. But still they are held; and they are held by a bond they cannot break or rid themselves of, when, being rebuked, their conscience either honestly owns to the justice of the rebuke, or owns to it no less conclusively though in a more painful manner by a certain violent refusal of it. And it is evident that the true Christian rebuker is not to wait till such time as the person rebuked is ready to confess his faith in things to come and his apprehension of things unseen: no; he is to speak because of his own calm, firm, yet modest and tenderly compassionate apprehension of eternal verities, the things of God, of Christ, of the soul, and of eternity. No end of other responsibility lies with him who poses as the Christian rebuker; but if he be truly this, then and then first is his responsibility rightly met. So souls are quickened, and death is startled into life. So the messages of revelation are spread with their sterner significance, and the tender words of Jesus are multiplied. So hearts that have been touched themselves, and souls that own to the earnest of salvation within them, illustrate the one compassion left to them when, other means having failed and the right moment of rebuke having arrived, they utter forth the burden with which they are charged. And Stephen now spoke before men many times himself in number, and in repute and worldly estimationmany of themfar placed above himself; yet he assumes the tone and place of authority, and plainly speaks the words of authority. Moreover, the character of that authority is that which beyond a doubt is most offensive to others. It deals in censure, reflects on the motives and conduct of men, and of a long line of their ancestors as well; and yet, provided his indictment is true and not slanderous, Stephen is right. Let alone the fact that he is fired with the light and the fervent flames of the Holy Spirit, he is right on the broadest ground of humanity, on the simplest principles of Christianity, in the name of truth, and in that service so often forgotten, the kind and faithful service of fellow-man. It is by no means a frequent thing to find the man who is ready to sacrifice himself in order to say and do those things of truth which have for their present reward loss even of life to claim, but for their remoter fruit the highest benefit of mankind.
4. But lastly, none who are believers in great leading doctrines of the Christian religion, and in particular in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as the force and the principle of life in that dispensation, will for a moment doubt that, in the last analysis, his authority is the beginning and the end of the rightful exercise of moral and spiritual rebuke. He finds the right for all those whom he moves in his own sovereign right. And his light, knowledge, and impulse conferred, submit to no limit except that which is self-imposed. His uncreate freedom, which so often blesses men to make them even sons of God, will yield none of its right, nor be robbed of its prerogative. When resisted, slighted, “grieved,” it freely reproves through human lip; or when on the point of being “quenched” for any, it comes freely to rebuke, as now though by human lips only in words and suggestions, which “cut to the heart” men to whose heart nothing but the qualities of hardness and resistance seemed left. The rebuke of God’s Spirit, albeit coming forth only from man’s lips, can no more be restrained than the scathing lightning can be stopped in its mid-career. The rebuke of God’s Spirit carries legitimately the credentials of its right in its might. And Christian rebuke, in the highest sense, postulates just this authority, ought to postulate it, and needs no other.
II. THE ILL WORK THAT COMES OF JUST REBUKE DETERMINEDLY REFUSED.
1. It certainly does not necessarily lose aught of its power to pain. “When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart.“ That certainly means pain, whatever the character of the pain.
2. The character of that pain is inevitably all-malignant. It is not of the pain that, sudden and sharp, lends itself also to the salutary use of calling attention to symptoms of inmost danger. It is a foregone conclusion that it shall not have any beneficial operation of this sort, and in this sad sense too to be forewarned proves to be forearmed, namely, against what might be the best of friends. It is left to such pain to work all it can, according to its own evil pleasure, purposed in its own self, without a single redeeming feature.
3. It stirs up anger’s muddiest depths. It excites anger to the turn of insanity. Anger rages first, then raves. What else is said, what less is true, when it is testified that “they gnashed on him with their teeth.” Anger so mastered them that it would not let them heed or even hear its own best Mentor,”Be ye angry, and sin not.” This anger is all sin. It is sin in its causelessness; it is sin in its excess; it is sin in its character of a demonstration of opposition so unequal as against one undefended man; it is sin against conscience and against that Spirit whose mightiest office is to touch livingly the conscience; it is sin in its blind, tumultuous desperation of conduct.
4. According to the intrinsic seriousness or otherwise of the individual occasion, the inevitable tendency of the determined refusal to hear rebuke is either to that stricken heart and conscience that are equivalent to moral paralysis, or to an activity equally frantic and disastrous. The revenge which rebuke, unheeded, though it be just, takes is found to vary within many degrees. Sometimes its work is slow and secret, sometimes it is even “open beforehand” in the force of its demonstrations, and these “go before to judgment.” It can scarcely be otherwise now. The present instance is typical. When arrived at a certain point, human nature seems to have it in it, rapidly indeed, “to fill up the measures of its iniquities.” “How much better” is reproof listened to than rebuke resented! But if instead we have resented reproof, then how much better is it to listen to rebuke, to kiss the rod that smites, and, though it smite severely, while still there is left us time to pray, “O Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure!” For pain and anger in concert know no compassion, and show mercy least of all and last of all to those who court their company and soon find themselves their driven slaves. Ill is the promise of fair entrance to haven for the vessel that is tossed in storms of anger, lashed by those blasts of pain, which are the avengings of an insulted, an aggravated, and disobeyed conscience.B.
Act 7:55-60
The glory of the martyr.
It is not impossible that the foregoing defense of Stephen may own to some slight ellipses; if so, to be accounted for partly by the fact of his immediate martyrdom, which prevented his rehearsal of it to any penman. But if it be not so, and if we have here in due connection all that Stephen said that is material to a right apprehension of the exact position of things, then his outburst recorded in Act 7:51-53 is indeed full of suggestion, hints at much that lay behind, and invests itself with great additional interest. For we must suppose that his discernment, all on fire at that moment, enabled him to see, both in the eyes of the council of judges and in some of their movements, perhaps of the most unconscious and involuntary character, that the crisis had arrived when, without another minute’s delay, he should deliver himself of truth’s scathing rebuke. And this superior illumination and quickened intelligence was, perhaps, but the stealing on, and with no very stealthy pace either, of the dawn of heavenly light itself. Whatever might be coming upon the enraged persecutors, to the brave and dignified persecuted was near at band the luster of the perfect day, the perfect truth, the perfect love. Let it be that the “age of miracles” has passed, how often all along up to the present have last moments of the servants of Christ, specially of his suffering ones, been visited in sight and sound by quickened perceptions of the eternal realities. With those realities Stephen is already in company in a degree beyond, possibly not in a manner altogether different from, manifestations vouchsafed in later days. The circumstances surrounding the death of Stephen have ever attracted special attention. The death is a martyrdom; it is the first distinct martyrdom for the name of Jesus. It is in some aspects of it not an altogether unworthy or unfaithful copy from the great original, and it is, on the other side, a type of many a close to earthly life which should hereafter come to pass. The surroundings of the death of Stephen well justify the gaze of all who pass by the way, the breathless listening of all who have an ear to hear, the deeper inquiry of all who are moved to deeper faith. And they reward these, abundantly reward them. There can be no mistake as to where the closing scene began. It began from the point at which the enemies of Stephen “gnashed their teeth on him.” And from this beginning of what may well be called here “the pain, the bliss of dying,” we may notice the things which shall seem chiefly to distinguish the death of the first Christian martyra death which is plainly offered for an open vision to all the world.
I. THE “FULL” POSSESSION “OF THE HOLY GHOST” ON THE PART OF THE MARTYR. This had long commanded life for Stephen and for his work. This had made him “full of faith” and “full of power,” and able to “work great wonders and miracles among the people.” This commands all Christian life, energy, and usefulness. It is the secret of life, but, more than that, the strong, sure force of it. And as the Holy Ghost had been the mighty Quickener of spiritual life and “work and wonder “for Stephen while he lived, so he is with him the strong Director and Supporter when he must face death, None can tell all the force of the Holy Spirit. He who has most only knows up to what he has; but is it not very plain, as the more a man has of him so he is the more strong and the more full of spiritual life and work, that we may therefore safely conclude that with him rests the complete transforming of our nature, no doubt, as well body as soul and spirit? Well may it be that we need not to “fear them who kill the body on]y,” when we have with us One, the Holy Spirit, who can, who does vanquish their killing work, even while they are yet in the act, himself pouring fuller streams of life into the soul. Is it not greatly to be feared that the modern Church is guilty (though unconsciously, yet guilty in that very thing) of dishonoring the Spirit? We dishonor the Spirit
(1) in not owning our entire dependence on him for spiritual life;
(2) in not taking far higher views than we generally do of the circle of his influence and of the degree of it; and
(3) in not obeying, and that both sensitively and trustingly, such impulses as he does graciously vouchsafe.
II. A POWER OF THE EYE TO SEE BEYOND THE USUAL HUMAN POWER OF SIGHT. Glorious is the contrast, and surely it must have been all designed, when Stephen can turn away his saddened gaze from the vision of malignant, hostile, and infuriate faces, to what an opened heaven now proffers to his sight. But even a more essential glory than the substituted objects of vision may be said to have been found in the new-born or all but new-born realization of the power itself that lay sleeping there so longsleeping and confined beneath the eyelid of flesh all life’s length, till the moment had come before “the last trump” to startle it into proving its unknown gift. So we live daily amid the presence of most momentous realities, nor know by how fine a veil, how frail a partition, they are separated from our sight, while any moment may do one or both of these same things for usrend open the veil or give the piercing sight to see through, past, and far, far above all the hindrances of sense and matter, let them be what they may. Glory now dawns on the horizon for Stephen; while he is yet in the strangest place and with a repulsive foreground, the distance is most radiant. It is far less of a miracle than a very simple fulfillment of assertions of Scripture and assurances of spiritual natures. The pure” blessed arc the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” He “looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God.”
III. THE SIGHT OF REALITIES MOST SIGNIFICANTLY APPROPRIATE TO STEPHEN. It may be observed that, alike, the historian affirms the resplendent objects that Stephen’s elevated gaze beheld, and also gives in quotation the words of his lips, uttered while yet his eyes beheld the ecstatic sight. We cannot err in understanding that what Stephen said he saw was keenly noticed and thought of by the historian and many a contemporary devout brother. Nor can we miss for ourselves the pointthe less that this is the only occasion on which we find Jesus Christ directly styled “the Son of man“ by any one but himself (but see Rev 1:13). For announcing, defending, advocating these facts; for preaching them with a zeal and faith in them that would not be silenced and could not be gainsaid,it was that Stephen was in his present place and position. The facts were these exactly: that
(1) the Jesus, whom they were none of them unwilling to call “Son of Man,“ and who called himself so, was, though “betrayed and murdered,” not only “Son of man;” and
(2) that he now stood, manifest in the opened heaven, in a position that offered no doubtful evidence of all the rest. This had been the preaching of Peter and the rest of the apostles and of Stephenthat the Jesus whom the Jews had slain was “exalted to the right hand of God.” Yes; is Stephen going to seal his testimony with his blood? before that shall be, God will seal his testimony, and give to Stephen the vision of what is close awaiting his sacrifice. The “everlasting gates” are already flung “open.” The “King of glory” has already gone through. Glory in all its effulgence is there, for God and Jesus, the Light and Glory, the Strength and Love of the universe, are there; and “an abundant entrance” is about to be given to Stephen. Oh what a sight for Stephen! What a contrast! What an infinite reward! What supreme grace of Heaven! And what a thought for us is Jesus is there, and he is “standing” there, to take at the first possible moment the hand of Stephen, and welcome his feet to the golden floor. The correspondence between the work of Stephen and the peril into which he had been brought by it, and the gracious manifestations now made to him, tells its own tale.
IV. A FAITHFUL AND EMPHATIC FULFILMENT UP TO THE LAST MOMENT OF THE RIGHT PARTS OF EARTHLY DUTY. NOW literally hurried away by force by his enemies, we are not told. of any struggle whatever on his part, nor of any murmur, nor of any expression of instinctive horror and dread. But we are told:
1. How, when the first storm of stones gave him the clear signal of what was to be expected for earth, he “calls upon God,” and, by no means forgetting the full meaning of his own “preaching and faith,” cries, “Lord Jesus, receive my sprat. The care of his own soul is ever the first duty of any man.
2. And how, with marvelous memory, he
(1) does not omit to pray for his murderers; nor
(2) omits to” kneel down,” as he prays,” Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” We have in all this, not the signs of an enthusiast merely or a fanatic. Here is something very differenta man with the splendor of the glory of God and the realities of heaven and the exalted Jesus bursting on his vision, and yet, amid storms of stones, recalled to prayer for himself and the trustful committing of his soul to the charge of Jesus, and to intercession on bended knees for his murderers. To disregard the suggestions of the patience of Stephen, the dying charge of his spirit, and the prayer for those who kill him, in their power to recall the temper and the trust and the forgivingness of his great Master and Savior, were to disregard Christ’s own grandest achievements. Of such achievements his force, his word, his Spirit, have now wrought in Stephen so early an illustrious and ever-enduring monument. Nor, amid all the rest of the splendor of the surroundings of Stephen’s departing from this world, was there any more intrinsic mark of what it all meant than the copy which he himself exhibited of a character and a portrait “after the Master”the Master Jesus.
V. A WORD APPLIED IN THE NARRATIVE TO DESCRIBE THE DEATH OF THE MARTYR AS SINGULARLY IN HARMONY WITH THE WHOLE WORLD‘S IRRESISTIBLE CONVICTION OF THE PERFECT PEACE OF THE SPIRIT, AS IT WOULD SEEM INAPPROPRIATE TO THE SUFFERINGS OF THE BODY. “And when he had said this, he fell asleep.“ The beautiful expression was not unknown nor unused before Christians used it; but men may be pardoned if they felt (perhaps against strict letter of fact) it could never be appropriately drawn upon without Christian revelation. But its use now, its use in the circum- stances presented here, is a sign and a mark indeed. This is not some occasion where truth is complimentarily sacrificed, and facts dragged in disgraceful chains in the train of words. On the contrary, facts, in spite of all appearances, deeper facts, despite the sight and the sounds and stones that are flying about, facts that insist on giving expression to themselves, triumph over words and over all opposing forces, and demand that, as the last thing we know of Stephen in this world, we shall know thisthat his death was as though a “sleep,” and his yielding to it as though he yielded to Heaven’s gracious remedy for nature’s deepest needsleep! “He fell asleep “in Jesus (1Th 4:14). “Well done, good and faithful servant””faithful unto death.” And in death also faithfula faithful witness of the Lord’s faithfulness to his own.
“He fell asleep in Christ his Lord;
He gave to him to keep
The soul his great love had redeemed,
Then calmly went to sleep.
And as a tired bird folds its wing
Sure of the morning light,
He laid him down in trusting faith,
And dreaded not the night.”
B.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK
Act 7:2-53
Stephen’s defense.
It was usual in the court of the Sanhedrim to allow an accused person to plead guilty or not guilty, and to speak in his own defense. As this address of Stephen’s is his defense, we must know of what he was accused. Generally it may be said that he was a blasphemer of God and the Law; but, to understand how such a charge could possibly be made, we must appreciate the intense and superstitious feeling concerning Mosaism which characterized the rulers of that day. The more manifestly that the spiritual life faded out of the older system, the more intensely the people clung to its mere forms and traditions; jealousy of it as a national system had taken the place of faithfulness to it as a revelation of God and a means of grace. Stephen was “the first man who dared to think that the gospel of Jesus was a Divine step forward, a new economy of God, which the existing Hebraic institutions might indeed refuse to accept, but which, in that case, would not only dispense with, but in the end overturn, the Hebraic institutions.” So far as a charge was brought against Stephen, it closely resembled that brought against our Lord. The false witnesses declared that they had heard him say “that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place [i.e. the temple], and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.” But while this was the definite charge, we find that the real offence must have been his bold and unqualified assertion of the Messiahship and divinity of Christ. Stephen’s crime, in the eyes of bigoted Jewish rulers, was his discernment of the spirituality of Christ’s mission; but this Stephen saw on its antagonistic side, and therefore we cannot wonder that he should excite such prejudice against himself. Olshausen well says, “The Jews, with a disposition of mind that looked to outward things, did not rightly comprehend the thoughts of Stephen, but took a distorted view of them. What he had represented as a consequence of the operation of the Spirit of Christ, whose design it was to consecrate the world as a great temple of God, and to guide religion from externals to the heart, that the Jews conceived as a purpose to be accomplished by violence, and thus they ascribed to him the destruction of the temple and the abolition of Jewish usagesthings which he had never attempted.” We may dwell on
I. THE FORM OF THE SPEECH AS ADAPTED TO THE JEWISH AUDIENCE. It is a historical resume. With such a Jewish audience is always pleased, and for such marked attention and interest can now be secured. It is remarkable:
1. For the knowledge of Scripture which it revealsa knowledge not concerned only with facts and persons, but with principles and their permanent applications.
2. For the skill with which he selected his Scripture points; so that not until “he had patiently traversed the whole period from Abraham to Solomon, selecting such facts as made for his own case, and setting them in skilful array, did he suffer one word to escape him at which even his most adverse hearer could take open exception.” Stephen illustrates for us the power that lies in
(1) command of Scripture;
(2) self-command;
(3) skill in the art of rhetoric and of argument;
(4) spiritual insight of the deeper meanings of Divine revelation.
II. THE RELATION OF THE SPEECH TO THE SPECIFIC CHARGES. He was accused of teaching what would materially change the old Jewish customs. He replies in effect
(1) that God had given a new revelation, and that he was only asking them to hear God’s message and receive God’s Messenger; and
(2) that, in rejecting a new message from God, they were only acting as their fathers had done in all the previous generations. This Stephen, in a very subtle way, hinted at by his historical references; but he reserved the full unfolding of it until the close of his speech.
Then he presses two points home upon the heart and conscience of his audience.
(1) In reference to the charge that he proposed the destruction of the temple and its ritual, he urged that God’s direct spiritual dealings with men were and always had been strictly independent of forms, or ritual, or temple. And
(2) in reference to the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, he urged that the Jews, under every succeeding form of Divine revelation, had resisted the Spirit. Dr. Dykes says, “As often as it had pleased God, through chosen messengers of his will, to lead Israel forward through a new moment of change into a fresh spiritual epoch of blessing, so often had God’s thoughts been misunderstood, his purposes hindered, and his messenger rejected by the bulk of Israel. This had been their national failingto cling to the present and material, whenever God was calling them to higher spiritual good. This they had done so often that their doing it now, by rejecting a spiritual Christ and idolizing a material temple, was only of a piece with their entire history.” We must suppose that the excitement of the Sanhedrim, who detected his point, and the clamor of the crowd, who followed the cue given by the council, reached at last such a height that Stephen could only close his speech suddenly with the few intense words given us in Act 7:51-53. It was a noble boldness and a sublime testimony, but we cannot wonder that it fed the flame of excitement and made a violent death for the heroic champion almost a certainty. There are times in life when what colder natures call imprudence is the immediate duty to which men are called. Stephen’s burning words have carried their conviction to human consciences through the long Christian ages. Literature has no intenser warning against losing the spiritual by doggedly clinging to the bare and formal and literal.R.T.
Act 7:6
etc
The ethics of Scripture quotation.
Much has been said, in modern times, about the importance of quoting from other writers or speakers with the utmost correctness and precision, giving the exact language in which the other mind clothed. its thought. And, from the point of view of a somewhat narrow theory of inspiration, it has been urged that all scriptural quotations should give the very words of the Scripture writer. Against making this bondage injurious and painful, two considerations may be presented.
1. It may be noticed that the Scriptures, as we have them, are translations, i.e. they are the thoughts of the inspired writers expressed in words chosen by other men, and there is no reason why men nowadays, who can grasp the thought of the original writer, should not give it expression in other, better-chosen, and better-adapted terms.
2. It may be shown that the apostles and New Testament speakers and writers did not put themselves under any such severe limitations. They quoted freely, jealous of the sense, but not unduly concerned about repeating the precise phraseology. Of this we have instances in Stephen’s speech, to which we direct attention; premising that our space does not admit of our pointing out every instance of deviation or addition, and that we can only attempt to open an interesting line of study. It is to be noticed that Stephen quotes from the Septuagint translation rather than from the original Scriptures, but even from the Septuagint he makes what seem to be important alterations; and he blends traditional references with Scripture quotations, as if some recognized authority attached to them. It is very probable that “ancient genuine elements were preserved traditionally among the Jews, which received their higher confirmation by admission into the New Testament. If we consider the general prevalence of oral tradition among all ancient nations, and particularly the stationary posture of things which was common among the Jews, such a descent of genuine traditionary elements through a succession of centuries wilt lose the astonishing character which it seems to have.” Illustrations may be given of the following points :
I. TRANSLATION AFFECTS THE LITERALITY, BUT NEED NOT AFFECT THE TRUTH. Show that:
1. Truth must get a form of words if it is to be communicated to and received by men, whose intercourse is so largely dependent on language.
2. A particular truth is not, of necessity, confined to one particular form of words. Each man may give it his own form of expression, and, conceivably, each man’s form may adequately represent the truth, and convey it to another mind.
3. The utmost importance would attach to the ipsissima verba of Scripture, if they could be recovered.
4. That they cannot be recovered, and can only be known in translation, may be designed to convince us of the comparative unimportance of the mere form.
5. The Bible is translated into many languages, and in its varied dress it is found efficiently to retain its spirit and its power.
II. MEMORY AFFECTS THE LITERALITY, BUT NEED NOT AFFECT THE TRUTH. Stephen spoke from memory; St. Paul, in his writings, quotes from memory. Ministers and teachers must often quote from memory. The power of memory is of two kinds
(1) the power to retain exact words;
(2) the power to retain the thought, the truth, or the principle, which found expression in the words. It may be easily said that the verbal memory is alone the correct one, but, more carefully considered, we would recognize the superior correctness of the memory that held the truth rather than the words.
III. WITH DUE CARE TO PRESERVE THE LITERALITY, WE SHOULD HAVE MORE CARE ABOUT GAINING SPIRITUAL HOLD OF THE TRUTH. Of this Stephen gives effective example. And it may be shown that a precise and adequate expression of any truth depends, not on the exact remembrance of a form of words or an accepted creed, but on spiritual insight, on the clearness of our visions of the truth: he who sees the truth will never find it difficult to make his brother see it too.R.T.
Act 7:37
A Prophet like Moses.
The reference is to Deu 18:18, and, as introduction, the difficulties which Moses found in executing his mission may be vividly described. In Stephen’s day it was the fashion to exalt Moses and the Mosaic system, but this was done in forgetfulness of the facts connected with Moses’ career. Again and again his leadership was refused. The stiff-neckedness and unspirituality of the people tried him very sorely; once, to so great an extent, that he spake unadvisedly with his lips, and threw down the tables of the Law. This Moses, in whom now they trusted, they were not really willing to heed, any more than their fathers had been; for Moses had himself prophesied of the Messiah, and any one who chose could make the comparison between Moses and Jesus of Nazareth, and see that the one answered to the other just as the great lawgiver had indicated. Some of the points of similarity between Moses and Messiah may be considered and illustrated.
I. EACH HAD A DIVINE CALL. Both in childhood: Moses in his mysterious preservation; Messiah in his mysterious birth. Both in early manhood (each early relatively to the age they lived): Moses in the vision of the flaming bush; Messiah in the dove-vision and heavenly voice at his baptism.
II. EACH HAD A SPECIAL PREPARATION. Moses in the experience of the Egyptian court and in the solitudes of Horeb; Messiah in the experiences of the carpenter’s house at Nazareth, and in the temptations of the Jordan desert.
III. EACH FOUNDED A DISPENSATION. Moses, one which was both an advance and a decline from the older patristic dispensation; an advance as a fuller revelation of God’s will, and a decline as imprisoning spiritual truth, for a time and purpose, in stiff religious rites and ceremonies. Messiah, one which was in every way an advance, liberating men from all ritual bonds, and bringing to open hearts the fuller revelations of the Father.
IV. EACH WAS A NEW SPIRITUAL FORCE. As bringing God near to men; exhibiting afresh his claims, and revealing himself. Every man who sees God thereby becomes a power on his fellows. Moses, in a surprising manner, saw God on Sinai; and with his vision there may be compared our Lord’s vision on the Mount of Transfiguration.
V. EACH WAS A TEACHER. Precisely of that which man could not gain by any studies and inquiries of his own. Both were
(1) moral teachers;
(2) religious teachers;
(3) teachers of a specific Divine truth;
(4) each enabled, by the power of miracle, to attest their teaching claims.
VI. EACH CLAIMED A HEARING ON DIVINE AUTHORITY. Moses made it continually known that God sent him and God spake by him. Messiah made it fully known that he did not speak of himself, but the words which the Father gave him he gave forth to men. This claim, based on Divine authority, Stephen presses on the attention of the Sanhedrim, urging that it makes their rejection of Christ positively criminal.
VII. EACH WERE REJECTED BY THEIR OWN GENERATION. See verse 35 and compare the rejection of Messiah. Impress that the many-sided and abundant proofs that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of God, and the Savior, bring his personal claims closely home to us, and make great indeed the guilt of our rejecting him. “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?”R.T.
Act 7:55, Act 7:56
Visions of the risen Christ.
It is hardly to be doubted that St. Paul preserved the record of these incidents; and we may realize how such a cry from the persecuted Nazarene, as we have in the text, would fix itself in the thought and memory of one so religious and so impulsive as St. Paul. It would be most vividly recalled to mind when he too was smitten down with the glory on the Damascus road, and himself heard the voice of Jesus, the risen and exalted One. Evidently the thing that most impressed St. Patti was Stephen’s firm conviction that the crucified Jesus was risen, living, exalted, glorified, Divine. However intensely St. Paul resisted this conviction at first, it had more power on him than he estimated. And the scene is a most impressive one. The howling mob; the reverend officials, borne away from all their proprieties by fanatical excitement; the young Pharisee, too aristocratic to take any actual part in carrying off the victim, or throwing the stones, helping to raise the excitement with stirring words; and amidst all the noise and the violence, the man of God, calm, rapt beyond present scenes, seeing the unseen, and uttering a last splendid testimony: to the one truth he had labored to declare. Say what men may of the Impostor of Nazareth, who was shamefully crucified, Stephen saw him living, and “standing on the right hand of God.” We need not think that there was any “external spectacle;” the vision was that kind of internal vision men have had when in a state of ecstasy. The fact of the vision was “inferred partly, we may believe, from the rapt, fixed expression of the martyr’s face, partly from the words that followed, interpreting that upward gaze.” The vision may be treated as
I. A COMFORT TO THE PERSECUTED ONE. Recall the promises of the Savior’s presence always with his people, but especially when they should be brought before kings and governors for his Name’s sake. Even making due account of the excitement produced by the surroundings of martyrdom, and its power to raise a heroic spirit, it has never been found an easy thing to face torture and death. But the story of the martyrs provides abundant illustration of the varied ways in which Christ has comforted his witnesses. Stephen was comforted by the vision in three ways.
1. It assured him that what he had testified was true. Christ was living and exalted.
2. It declared that he was not suffering alone. The Christ was in fullest sympathy with him.
3. And it encouraged him to full trust in all his Lord’s promises of strength and grace for the enduring and final triumph over his foes. The vision seemed to say, “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee.”
II. A CONFIRMATION OF THE CHRISTIAN TRUTH. At different times different parts of the Christian truth have been the citadel or the redan round which the chief fighting has raged, and on which the issue of battle has depended. In the early Church the conflict was mainly over the question of our Lord’s resurrection from the dead. Two things were seen to depend on this resurrection.
1. Our Lord’s claim to Messiahship.
2. The spiritual character of our Lord’s mission. If risen and exalted, his kingly authorities are declared to be no coarse earthly dominion; he is King of souls, Deliverer of sinners, the living One who saves.
III. A WITNESS AGAINST STEPHEN‘S PERSECUTORS. And that the witness was effective is shown in its increasing their rage. A dying testimony that was more effective than anything he had spoken in life. But the hated name, spoken of as being at God’s right hand in the glory, “let loose the tide of rage which awe had for a moment frozen, and with illegal tumult, councilors and bystanders, turned through sheer passion into a mob, swept him from the chamber with a rush, and hurried him for execution beyond the northern city gate.”
The times have brought round again the most serious conflict over the truth of the Resurrection. Show the importance of Stephen’s life-testimony to this fact, especially as being given when men would have refuted it if they could, and could if it had not been true. Show how the dying testimony sealed the witness of Stephen’s life.R.T.
Act 7:58
Our introduction to the greatest of apostles.
It is only casually mentioned that “the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul,” and yet how much is declared in the brief sentence! It is our first sight of the zealous young Pharisee from Tarsus. It is at once an indication of his character and spirit. We see the impulsiveness that has taken up so violent an opposition to the Nazarene impostor and all his followers. If Saul cannot be allowed to throw the actual stones, seeing he was not one of the witnesses, he will do the next thinghe will hold the clothes of the men who have stripped themselves in order to do more efficiently their deadly work. It was the occasion on which Saul gained an impression which he never afterwards lost, and which resulted in what would surprise no one so much as it did himself, in leading him to take up and carry on that very witness and work for which the heroic Stephen died. The age of Saul at this time cannot be certainly known. We may assume that he was under thirty years old. Three points may receive consideration in the picture that our text presents to us.
I. SAUL SHARING BY HIS PRESENCE. He “was consenting unto Stephen’s death.” “He gave his voice against him.” He watched over the clothes. He regarded the scene with satisfaction. A delusion sometimes possesses men that they cannot be guilty of a crime unless they took actual part in it. Saul had nobler moral sentiments. The approver is as guilty as the actor; for he also would have done the thing had opportunity served. But how searching and how serious becomes the consideration that, before God, we may be judged guilty on the ground of our approval and consent! With what limitations and qualifications must this point be pressed? St. Paul does not hesitate to take on himself the guilt of Stephen’s death, though he never lifted a stone.
II. SAUL AVOIDING SHARING IN THE EXECUTION. This may be explained on one or other of the following grounds:
1. The law of the execution, which required the witnesses against the victim to effect and complete the death.
2. The position Saul occupied as one of the judges. He gave his vote, and it is never regarded as becoming in a judge to execute his own sentence. Whether Saul was a member of the actual Sanhedrim, or of some committee appointed to deal with these followers of Jesus of Nazareth, does not appear.
3. Aristocratic sentiments might keep Saul from actually engaging in the stoning. Nothing could free Saul from his share of the guilt of Stephen’s death.
III. SAUL RECEIVING IMPRESSIONS AS AN ON–LOOKER. Endeavor to estimate his conflict of feeling. While actually watching, rage and hatred may have prevailed, but his mind was receiving its picture of the calm and heroic sufferer; and presently Saul lost sight of judges, witnesses, and crowds, and the vision on his soul alone was before him. He saw the saintly man fall asleep; he heard again those dying cries; he seemed to look through and see what Stephen saw, the Son of man glorified; and, strive how he would to blot out the vision, it was there; rush desperately into persecuting ways how he might, still the vision was there. Stephen, we may fairly say, awakened Saul to anxiety, and prepared the way for that vision of Christ which bowed clown Saul’s pride and won him to penitence, to faith, and to service. Better than the fable of the phoenix is the truth of Saul. Out of Stephen’s death he sprang to a nobler, longer life of witness for the living Christ than Stephen could have lived. Death is often found the way, and the only way, to life. “Dying, and behold we live.”R.T.
Act 7:59, Act 7:60
Noble dying cries.
Some account may be given of the mode of securing death by stoning. The practice is first heard of in the deserts of stony Arabia, this mode having been suggested probably by the abundance of stones, and the fatal effect with which they were often employed in broils among the people. Originally the people merely pelted their victim, but something like form and rule were subsequently introduced. A crier marched before the man appointed to die, proclaiming his offence. He was taken outside the town. The witnesses against him were required to cast the first stones. But the victim was usually placed on an elevation, and thrown clown from this, before he was crushed with the stones flung upon him. For full details, see Kitto’s ‘Bibl. Illus.,’ 8:63. It was the mode of execution usual for the crimes of blasphemy and idolatry (see Deu 13:9, Deu 13:10; Deu 17:5-7). Stephen’s dying cries should be compared with those of our Lord Jesus Christ, in order that the measures in which Stephen caught the Christly spirit may be realized.
I. THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST TO HIS SPIRIT MADE STEPHEN DEAD TO THE PRESENCE OF HIS FOES. In this we learn the secret of our elevation above the world, care, suffering, or trouble. It lies in our being so full of” Christ and things Divine “as to have no room for them. Our hearts may be so full of God’s presence, and so restful in the assurance of his acceptance and smile, that we may say, “None of these things move me.” “If God be for us, who can be against us? ‘One of the greatest practical endeavors of life should be to bring and to keep Christ closely near to heart and thought. If outward circumstances reach to such an extremity as in the case of Stephen, we shall then say with him, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
II. To HIM WHO WAS SO NEAR, STEPHEN PRAYED FOR HIMSELF. Observe that:
1. His prayer indicates submissive acceptance of the fact that he must die. He does not ask for any bodily deliverance, any miracle-working for his personal release. Compare in this our Lord’s submission when his life came to its close.
2. His prayer indicates superiority to bodily suffering. There is no petition for relief from pain or even for speedy release. Exactly what was God’s will for him he would bear right through. Compare our Lord’s triumph in Gethsemane, and his going forth to bodily sufferings calm and trustful. Stephen fulfilled his Lord’s words that his disciples should drink of the “cup” that he drank of.
3. And his prayer indicates supreme concern, but absolute confidence concerning his soul and his future. There is no tone of questioning; with full faith in the Lord Jesus, he commends his spirit to hima last and unquestioning testimony to his faith in the living, spiritual Christ.
III. To HIM IN WHOM HE HAD SUCH CONFIDENCE HE PRAYED FOR HIS FOES, Compare our Lord’s words, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” In the older clays of political execution by the axe, the headsman used to kneel and ask the forgiveness of the victim, before proceeding to place his head upon the block. Stephen knew how blinded by prejudice and false notions of religion his persecutors were, and he gives a beautiful illustration of heavenly, Divine charity in thus pleading for his very murderers. One point should not be lost sight of. Even in this last word of the noble man he asserted his characteristic truth once more. The Lord Jesus is living, and the exalted Savior, for he controls the charging and the punishing of sin. “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge “an unmeaning prayer if he had not fully believed that Jesus had power on earth to deal with, to punish, and to forgive sin. Close by showing the wondrous calmness and the exquisite tenderness of the words of the narrative, “He fell asleep.” We hear the howlings of the people, the whirr and smash of the stones, but amid it all and “in the arms of Jesus,” the saint and hero and martyr softly “falls asleep “asleep to earth, waking to heaven and peace and the eternal smile of the living Christ, for whose sake he died.R.T.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Act 7:1 . The high priest interrupts the silent gazing of the Sanhedrists on Stephen, as he stood with glorified countenance, and demands of him an explanation of the charge just brought against him.
Is then this (which the witnesses have just asserted) so? With (see on Act 1:6 ; Luk 13:23 ) the question in the mouth of the high priest has something ensnaring about it. On the , used with interrogative particles as referring to the circumstances of the case (here: of the discussion), see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 177; Ngelsb. on the Iliad , p. 11, Exo 3 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
B.Stephen Vindicates himself in a Powerful Discourse
Act 7:1-53
_____________
I. The first part of the discourse, embracing the age of the Patriarchs
Act 7:1-16.
1Then said the high priest, Are these things so?1 2And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when hewas in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran [Haran, (Gen 11:31)], 3And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the2 land which I shall show thee. 4Then came [went] he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran [Haran]: and [. And] from thence, when his father wasdead [had died], he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. 5And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on [in it, not even a foot-breadth]: yet [and] he promised that he would give it to him3 for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. 6And [But] God spake on this wise, That [that] his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should [would] bring them [it, (, the seed)] into bondage, and entreat them [it] evil four hundred years. 7And [years; 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. 8And he gave him the covenant of circumcision; and [circumcision. And] so Abraham [he] begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacobbegat the twelve patriarchs. 9And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph [enviedJoseph, and sold him] into Egypt: but God was with him, 10And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and [over] all his house.11Now there came a dearth [famine] over all the land of Egypt4 and Chanaan [Canaan],and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance. 12But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he [But J. heard that there was grain in store, and] sentout our fathers first [our fathers the first time to Egypt]5. 13And at the second time Joseph was made known to [was recognized by] his brethren; and Josephs kindred [race] was made [became] known to Pharaoh. 14Then sent Joseph [But J. sent], and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen [seventy-five]souls. 15So [And] Jacob went down unto Egypt,6 and died, he, and ourfathers, 16And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that7 Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.8
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Act 7:1. Then said the high priest.The high priest, as the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin, gives Stephen an opportunity to speak in defence of himself; while he thus recognizes the rights of the accused, the term , connected with the interrogative particle , expresses even favorable sentiments, or is at least intended to exhibit the equity of the speaker.
Act 7:2-3. a. And he said.It is highly probable that Stephen, whom we have every reason to regard as a Hellenist, employed the Greek language, when he delivered the present discourse (the design and genuineness of which are considered below). [See General Remarks appended to Exeg. note on Act 7:53.Tr.]. This opinion, which is suggested by his birth and education, is confirmed by the general complexion of the discourse; the latter corresponds throughout to the Alexandrian Version. We possess, besides, conclusive historical testimony that the Greek language was, at that time, so generally understood and spoken in Palestine, that the delivery of a Greek discourse in the Sanhedrin could not be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance.The terms of the address, , were conciliatory; they both indicated that the speaker regarded the members of the council with reverence as fathers, and also involved an appeal to their common nationality (brethren).
b. The God of glory.Stephen commences his discourse with this descriptive name of God for wise reasons. It was one of his objects to counteract the slanderous report which had been circulated, that he had blasphemed God (Act 6:11); and to repel any possible charge that the Christians did not properly revere Him. Hence he expresses his own devout and reverential sentiments, and gives to God the honor which belongs to him. But he has also another, and a more direct object, when he refers specially to the glory () of God; even at this early stage in his discourse, as well as afterwards, his mind is engaged in the contemplation of the inconceivable grandeur, the boundless power, and the absolute sovereignty of God. In his view, God is independent of every object, animate or inanimate, and may reveal himself to any creature, in any mode, and in any place, according to his own pleasure. The present expression, especially when viewed in its connection with , reminds us of that exalted and wonderful celestial splendor which usually attended earlier theophanies or manifestations of God. [See Exo 24:16; Exo 33:18 ff; Exo 40:34; Lev 9:23, and comp. Herzog: Real-Encyk. art. Schechina, XIII. 476, and Theophanie, XVI. Tr.]
c. Before he dwelt in Charran.Abraham accompanied his father Terah, when the latter journeyed to Charran (the Carr of the Romans), a very ancient city of Mesopotamia, situated on a frequented route, and probably in a south-westerly direction from Ur of the Chaldees, in which region they had previously resided (see Winer: Realw. art. Haran [and Herzog: Real-Encyk. V. 539]). It was, according to the Mosaic narrative [Gen 11:31], the original intention of Terah, who took with him his son Abram, together with Sarai and Lot, to proceed as far as Canaan; but he advanced no further than Charran [Haran], where he remained until his death. It is only afterwards (Gen 12:1 ff.) that mention is made of the divine command which Abram received, to forsake his country and his kindred, and journey into a land which God would show; the divine blessing was promised at the same time. It undoubtedly seems to follow from this statement that Abraham did not receive the revelation which included a command to go to the land that should be shown to him, at a period anterior to his residence in Charran. Nevertheless, Stephen represents this revelation as having occurred in Mesopotamia (Act 7:2), or in the land of the Chaldeans (Act 7:4), i.e. in Ur in Chaldea; and he assigns it to a period which preceded the first migration of the family, when it was their more immediate object to reach the city of Charran. And, indeed, the very terms which God employs in Gen 12:1, are here repeated in Act 7:3, only with the difference that they appear in an abbreviated form. Hence, various interpreters (e. g. Grotius; de Wette; Meyer), have maintained that Stephen had involuntarily committed a mistake, in the excitement of the moment, and had assigned to an earlier period and to another region, (that of Ur,) the divine command which Abraham really received afterward, when he had already reached Charran. Although we do not believe that it would be perilous to concede this point, there is another circumstance, conflicting with the opinion of these interpreters, which claims consideration. It is well known from statements in Philo (De Abrahamo. 15.) and Josephus, (Antiq. i. 7, 1.), that the Jews, in that age, and particularly those of Alexandria, held the opinion that Abraham had already received a divine command while he dwelt in Ur. It is this tradition which Stephen adopts, applying the words in Gen 12:1 to that supposed earlier call of God. And, indeed, there are traces even in the book of Genesis itself, of such a command of God which Abraham received in Ur. In Gen 15:7, God says to Abraham: I am Jehovah, who led thee forth from Ur in Chaldea (), to give thee this land. These words seem to imply plainly that God had distinctly communicated his will to Abraham, that he should depart from Ur; and there is a special reference to these words in Neh 9:7. It is true that no mention is made in Gen 11:31 of any direct command of God, and the departure from Ur appears to be a voluntary act of Terah, rather than one of obedience to the divine will on the part of Abraham. But the peculiar construction of the book of Genesis ought not to be overlooked; it is evidently founded on several documents and accounts, which had, to some extent, been originally composed from different points of view, and this observation is specially applicable to Acts 11. and Acts 12. Accordingly, the method adopted by the later Jews, (which was followed by Stephen also,) of viewing the event in connection with its causes and its consequences, cannot, with propriety, be rejected unconditionally as erroneous and unhistorical; we perceive, on the contrary, that Stephens statement is not entirely unsupported by the scriptural records themselves.
Act 7:4. When his father was dead.Here again Stephen assents to the current opinion of his age, which is recorded by Philo [who falls into the same mistake, de Migr. Abrah., 32 (Alf.)], and which could scarcely have been suggested simply by the consideration that filial duty would not have allowed Abraham to abandon his father in his old age. The passage, Gen 11:31-32; Gen 12:1 ff., when read as a continuous and progressive narrative, does, at first, convey the impression that Abraham did not receive the command to migrate to Canaan, before his fathers death [while, in truth, the mention of that event in Gen 11:32 is proleptical or anticipatory (Alford).Tr.]. There can be no doubt, when the chronological data are considered, that Terah was still living when Abraham departed from Charran. For, according to Gen 11:27, he was seventy years old when he begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; the statement doubtless refers to the particular year in which Abraham was born. According to Gen 11:32, Terah died at the age of two hundred and five years. But Abraham was only seventy-five years old when he departed from Charran, Gen 12:4. Therefore, Terah must have lived sixty years in Charran, after Abrahams departure [70+75=20560]. Besides, the expression; from thy fathers house ( ) seems to imply that Terah was still alive, when Abraham received that command. Hence, Stephen here follows a chronological tradition which seems, indeed, at first view, to be supported by Gen 11:32 compared with Act 12:1 ff., but which, on a closer inspection, is found to be erroneous. This fact ought to be admitted without hesitation, for all the attempts that have been made to reconcile these conflicting statements, have been failures, and are, moreover, unnecessary. Nothing could be more truly a product of the imagination, than the theory (of Bengel and others) that Abraham had indeed proceeded to Canaan during the life of his father, but still retained his home in Charran, and had, only after the decease of Terah, sundered all his early ties, and established himself essentially in Canaan. [This interpretation is inconsistent with the meaning and construction of . . in Act 7:4. (de Wette, and Alford.)Tr.]. There is as little foundation for the interpretation of others (Luger: Zweck d. Rede d. St., 1838; Ols.; Stier) that Stephen intended to say that Abraham had left Charran after the spiritual death of Terah, i.e., after the latter had become an idolater. For how can admit of such an interpretation, when unattended by a single term that would indicate it, and when, besides, nothing whatever is found in the context, which suggests such a meaning of the verb? Nor can it be proved that this was the usual interpretation in the age of the apostles; it is, at least, an error that Philo countenances it. It was, first of all, proposed in the Talmud, and even there occurs merely as an expedient for evading the chronological difficulty.Baumgarten thinks (I. 131 ff.) that the language used in Act 7:4, simply means that now, when Jehovah is entering into new relations with mankind, Abraham should be viewed, at such an important epoch, not as in any manner related to Terah, but as one who was connected with him by no ties whatever. But if Stephen had intended to convey such a thought, he would have necessarily employed an entirely different form of expression. [Other solutions of this exegetical problem are not noticed by the author, probably because they carry their own refutation with them, e. g., that Abraham was Terahs youngest son, sixty years younger than Haran, or, that the chronology of the Samaritan text should be adopted, etc.Tr.].Is it necessary to have recourse to so many devices? Why should we not concede that Stephen, like his contemporaries, adopted an opinion which the text of the sacred narrative seems, at first view, to suggest, but which a closer investigation has shown to be erroneous? Even if he made an inaccurate statement with regard to a question in chronology, such an incident derogates neither from the wisdom nor from the fulness of the Spirit by which he spake (Act 6:10).
Act 7:5. And he gave him none inheritance in it; is property obtained by inheritance, and capable of being transmitted to heirs.This statement is by no means contradicted by the fact that Abraham purchased of Ephron a field with a cave (Gen. Acts 23); it is precisely the circumstance that he was compelled to purchase the field, which establishes the fact that he owned no land as yet bestowed on him by God. (Bengel). The explanation that Stephen refers to the earliest period of Abrahams residence in Palestine, and that the purchase occurred at a later time, namely, after the institution of circumcision, Act 7:8 (Meyer), is not satisfactory; these two periods, an early and a later, are obtruded on the text, which not only lays no stress on such a distinction, but does not even allude to it.Stephen speaks emphatically of the fact that the divine promise in reference to the land, was given to Abraham before a child was born unto him, for the purpose of reminding his hearers that both the possession of the inheritance, and also the birth of an heir, depended entirely on God,the inheritance and the son were both the free gifts of his grace.
Act 7:6-7. And God spake on this wise.Stephen quotes the prophecy in Gen 15:13, in the language of the Alexandrian version in general, although certain variations from it are discoverable. He repeats, for instance, the original words in the indirect form of speech, and it is only in Act 7:7, that he passes from the narrative to the direct form, which he indicates by the words: . And, at the close of Act 7:7, he combines Exo 3:12 with Gen 15:13; the former passage contains a promise given to Moses in Horeb, and refers to the worship which would soon be offered in the vicinity of that mountain. This promise is interwoven with the one given to Abraham, which referred to the worship of Israel at a future period in Canaan, the land of their inheritance. We may undoubtedly find an inaccurate (de Wette) reference here, if we adhere very scrupulously to the literal meaning. But can we take it amiss, if Stephen, instead of anxiously dwelling on the mere letter, or on minute details, rather surveys with profound judgment the whole wide extent of the divine economyand if he then combines a promise given to Abraham with one addressed to Moses, and, in the case of the latter, even looks beyond to a still later day? He does not intend to quote the identical words to which he refers, but, rather, to connect and apply them.We may form the same judgment respecting the period of four hundred years which Stephen assigns (Act 7:6) to the bondage in Egypt. The whole duration of that bondage, four hundred and thirty years, is, without doubt, stated with chronological exactness in Exo 12:40, while Stephen avails himself of a privilege which cannot be reasonably denied to him, and merely mentions a round number. [For an explanation of the apparent discrepancy between this passage and Gal 3:17, see O. Schmoller, ad loc., in a succeeding volume of this commentary.Tr.].The connection shows that in Act 7:7 refers to the well-deserved penal judgment which God would subsequently execute in the case of the tyrants who oppressed his people.
Act 7:8. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision.The covenant which God made with Abraham is termed a , as circumcision was not only the token [sign] of this covenant ( , Gen 17:11), but was also itself an essential constituent part of this covenant: ( , Gen 17:10).The phraseology in this verse: . ., gave instead of made the covenant with Abraham, seems to be designedly chosen, in order to indicate that the establishment of the covenant was a voluntary act of God, and, indeed, a gracious gift, and that, when He reveals himself, he is by no means subject to limitations or conditions imposed by men:[ , and thus, i. e., in accordance with the terms of the covenant, God gave a son to Abraham, and Abraham, on his part, circumcised that son.Tr.]
Act 7:9-13. And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph.This is the first occasion on which, in this general view of sacred history, sin is mentioned, the reference being to the envy with which Jacobs sons regarded their brother Joseph. Jealousy and envy influenced them to give him away (), i.e., they did all that lay in their power, to remove him for ever from themselves and the whole family, and to degrade him. But although they cast him off, God was with him. He delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharoah. The sense here is: he was very favorably received by Pharoah, whose confidence he acquired by his wise interpretation of certain dreams, and by the counsels which he imparted to that king. It accords better with the context to refer to the favor of the king than to the grace of God; the latter is already indicated in the words: , and is illustrated in all the facts that are stated, including the royal favor which Joseph enjoyed. [Pharaoh was the common title of the ancient kings of Egypt, as Ptolemy (Greek, warrior) was applied to those of the Grco-Macedonian period. The latest authorities confirm the statement of Josephus (Antiq. viii. 6, 2), that the word is not a proper name but an appellative, signifying, in the ancient Egyptian, the king. (Herzog: Real-Encyk. Vol. XI. p. 490).Tr.]
Act 7:14-15. Threescore and fifteen souls.Stephen here follows the Septuagint version, in which seventy-five souls are reckoned, whereas the original Hebrew text mentions only the round number seventy; see Gen 46:27, and Exo 1:5; the latter includes Joseph and his two sons. The Sept. counts, in the former passage, not less than nine sons of Joseph. [Commentators generally admit that the Septuagint text has been interpolated and is somewhat confused, but no one has furnished a perfectly satisfactory explanation of the principles adopted in the modes of computation, which would clearly furnish, as results, the respective numbers of seventy and seventy-five. Stephen, who adheres to the Septuagint, quoted the most current and familiar version, without alteration (J. A. Alexander). Whether the number was seventy or seventy-five, it was a mere handful compared with the (subsequent) increase. (Hackett).Tr.]
Act 7:16. And were carried over into Sychem.The words , in Act 7:15, constitute the nominative to the verb . Stephen says that the remains of Jacob, and also of his sons, were carried to Sychem; his language has occasioned here, too, perplexity with respect to several particulars. 1. We are told in Gen 50:13, that Joseph and his brethren buried the body of Jacob in the cave of the field near Hebron [Mamre; the same is Hebron, Gen 23:19], whereas Stephen says that Jacob was buried in Sychem. 2. According to Jos 24:32, the Israelites, when they took possession of Canaan, buried the bones of Joseph, which they brought from Egypt, in Shechem [Sychem]; but it is not stated either in this passage or elsewhere in the Old Testament, that the bones of Josephs brethren, whom the terms employed by Stephen include, were buried at the same place. 3. Stephen says that Abraham bought the piece of ground in Sychem, of the sons of Emmor [Greek form of the Hebrew Hamor]; , and not , [as in the Vulg. filii] is to be supplied before . [So J. A. Alexander also holds, appealing to Gen 33:19; Gen 34:2; Gen 34:4; Gen 34:6; Gen 34:8; Gen 34:13; Gen 34:18; Gen 34:20; Gen 34:24; Gen 34:26.Tr.]. Yet it was not Abraham, but Jacob, who bought this piece of ground of the former owners. Gen 33:18-19. Consequently, Stephen confounded the latter with the spot near Hebron, which Abraham had bought. Every possible attempt has been made to explain these variations, from the period in which the oldest manuscripts were written (one of which [E.] substitutes for , in order to evade the third variation mentioned above), down to the age of the Reformers, and thence, to the present day. [Kuinoel, in an extended note ad loc. discusses several of the solutions that have been attempted, without being attended with entire success. Hackett, who appears to adopt Calvins very positive opinion (Com. Tholucks ed. IV. 118) that, in the third discrepancy, the error lies in the name Abraham, proposes to omit it, or substitute Jacob; without a subject, he adds, could be taken as impersonal: one purchased=was purchased; he refers to Winer: Gram. N. T. 58, 9, where the grammatical principle is illustrated.Tr.]. Interpreters have, without success, availed themselves of every resource which the laws of Criticism, or of Grammar, or the principles of Lexicology or of Hermeneutics seemed to offer. The theory has been proposed that two burials are described in terms which were intentionally abbreviated, or that the passage before us speaks of two purchases. It is, however, the most judicious course to admit frankly, that, with reference to the purchase of the ground and the burial of Jacob, it might easily occur that Stephen, whose discourse treated an entirely different and a loftier theme, should, in his rapid course, confound two analogous transactions. [Olsh. and Alford concur.] As to the burial of Josephs brethren in Canaan, the Old Testament presents no conflicting statements, but merely observes silence; it is very probable that such a tradition, the existence of which at a later period can be proved, was already current in Stephens age, and adopted by him. [J. A. Alexander, who briefly refers to several modes of explaining the apparent contradictions, without deciding whether unusual constructions or textual corruptions should be admitted, closes with the following remark: It is easy to cut the knot by assuming a mistake on Stephens part, but not so easy to account for its being made by such a man, addressing such an audience, and then perpetuated in such a history, without correction or exposure, for a course of ages.The reading in Cod. Sin., Act 7:16, does not differ from that found in text. rec.Tr.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. God is , Act 7:2. These words contain a doctrinal statement which is of wide application, and which distinctly defines the position assumed by the speaker. All that God is, in himselfall his actsand all the modes in which he manifests himself, bear the impress of his glory, that is, of absolute greatness, power and majesty. His ways are perfectly free, and entirely beyond the control of any creature. He can reveal himself wheresoever he will, and is not restricted to any spot in creation, to any country, city, or building (such as the temple). This view, when speculatively considered, seems to be very naturally suggested by our conception of God as the Infinite Spirit. But man is easily carried away from this truth by a certain centrifugal force, and begins to conceive of God as if he were, in a certain manner, bound to some finite object. It is, therefore, perpetually necessary, to lay stress on the conception of the absolute glory of God, in order to counteract those delusive limitations of Him who is infinite.
2. Great prominence is given to Josephs life in that view of Sacred History which Stephen presents. The thought had doubtless occurred to him, with more or less distinctness, that Joseph was a type of Jesus himself. And, indeed, the number of the points of resemblance between Joseph and Jesus Christ, will be found to be surprisingly great, when we closely examine their personal history, their experience, and their works. Stephen directs attention specially to the fact, that, although Josephs brethren were hostile to him, and exposed him to ignominy, God was, nevertheless, with him, and exalted him.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Act 7:2. And he said.Be ready always to give an answer, etc., 1Pe 3:15-16.Brethren, and fathers.He addresses them in kind and respectful terms, without either carnal zeal or spiritual pride, although they by no means demonstrated that they regarded him either with fraternal or parental affection.The God of glory, etc.A servant of God should accustom himself to justify the ways of God, rather than his own. (Quesn.).God, revealed of old as a God of glory, in the government of his own chosen people: He manifests, I. His unlimited power; II. His free grace; III. His unerring wisdom.
Act 7:3. Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred.Self-denial is one of the primary constituents of faith in God. (Starke).Every Christian must go forth with Abraham, renounce the friendship of the world, and all comfort derived from creatures, put all his trust in God, and love him alone. (id.)
Act 7:4. Then came he out and from thence, etc.The life of the believer is a continued pilgrimage; each short sojourn is succeeded by another departure, until he enters the true Canaan.
Act 7:5. And he gave him none inheritance in it.This world is not the inheritance of the children of God; they have not their portion in it, but are mere sojourners. (Quesn.).He, to whom God is all in all, is rich, even if he does not own so much as a foot-breadth. (Starke).Yet he promised that he would give, etc.The inheritance of faith is in the unseen world; yea, the believer is already put in possession of it by the promise of God; Heb 11:1.
Act 7:6. That his seed should sojourn, etc.The divine promise was so expressed, as to prove a severe trial of Abrahams faith; we must suffer with Christ, as well as be glorified together with him; Rom 8:17. (Starke).
Act 7:7. And the nation I judge.God chooses his own time for humbling his people, but also his own time for judging the agents by whom they are humbled. When his rods are no longer serviceable, he casts them into the fire. In each case the decree proceeds from his justice; the whole history, alike of the world in general, and of the church in particular, furnishes illustrations.And serve me in this place.The redeeming work of Christ imposes solemn obligations on the redeemed to serve him; Luk 1:74-75. (Starke).
On Act 7:2-8. Abraham, the father of all them that believe, a bright example for all believing pilgrims of God. His history illustrates, I. The sacrifices and trials of faith; II. The patience and obedience of faith; III. The reward and blessing of faith.Abrahams pilgrimage: I. The difficulties encountered by that pilgrim in his path; II. The good staff which supported him; III. The happy close of his pilgrimage.
Act 7:9. And the patriarchs, moved with envy.Godliness is always followed by the hatred and envy of the world, 2Ti 3:12. A mans foes shall be they of his own household. Mat 10:32. Brothers are of one blood, but seldom of one mind. (Starke).
Act 7:10. Gave him favor and wisdom.It is only after grace, [, see the Exeget. note on Act 7:9-13, above], and through grace, that true wisdom is given. (Apost. Past.).
Act 7:11. Now there came a dearth.Where Jesus, the true Joseph, does not dwell, a famine of the true bread [Amo 8:11] must necessarily prevail, since he alone is the bread of life, Joh 6:48-51. (Quesn.).And our fathers found no sustenance.The famine was also felt by Abrahams family. Godliness does not exempt men from feeling the effects of national afflictions and other temporal calamities; but the issue of the trials of the godly is different from that of the plagues of the ungodly; Rom 8:28. (Apost. Past.).
Act 7:13. And at the second time Joseph was made known.Joseph did not at once make himself known to his brethren, at the very first visit. We must learn to wait, if we desire to experience the grace of God, Psa 130:5-6. God often permits our distress to reach the highest point, in order that he may reveal himself the more gloriously, when he grants relief. (Starke). O that the Jews, of whom so many did not know Jesus, their brother after the flesh, when he first appeared, would now, in these last times, learn to know him! (ib.).
Act 7:16. Laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought.It is not a slight exhibition of divine grace, when the remains of an individual are deposited near those of the fathers, and at a place where the name of God is honored, and the visible church exists. (Starke).
On Act 7:9-16. Joseph, a type of Jesus: I. In his state of humiliation; each, beloved of his father, but mocked and hated by his brethren; each, conscious, in the earliest years, of his future eminence, but conducted through sufferings to honor; each, hated by his kindred, sold into the hands of sinners, falsely accused, unjustly condemned. II. In his state of exaltation; Jesus, like Joseph, crowned with honor, after shame and sufferings; appointed as the ruler and deliverer of a famishing people; recognized with terror by those who had formerly rejected and persecuted him; showing grace and mercy to those who had done evil unto him.
Footnotes:
[1]Act 7:1. [of text. rec.] after is wanting in A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.] and some minuscule mss., and has on this account been cancelled by Lach.; but it is found in D. E. H., and the fathers; it could more easily have been dropped as superfluous, than have been inserted as a correction. [Retained by Tisch. and Alf.Tr.]
[2]Act 7:3. The article before , which is wanting in the text. rec., is so well attested, that its genuineness cannot be doubted. [Found in A. B. C. D. E. Cod. Sin.; omitted in H., but retained by later editors generally.Tr.]
[3]Act 7:5. is better attested [by A. B. C. D. E. H.] than [of the text. rec. which reading is supported only by a few minuscule manuscripts. Lach., Tisch., and Alf. read .Cod. Sin. exhibits the following: . . .Tr.]
[4]Act 7:11. Griesbach and Lachmann, following the authority of A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.] and some ancient versions [Syr. Vulg. etc.] read ; other MSS. [E. H.], and some versions, have ; could have more easily been dropped by copyists, than have been inserted. [ retained by Tisch. and Alf.Tr.]
[5]Act 7:12. The reading is far better attested than , which is a correction to suit . [ A. of text. rec. in D. H.; A. in A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin. and adopted by Lach. Tisch. and Alf.Tr.]
[6]Act 7:15. is a better reading than ; D., and some versions, exhibit no conjunction at all, and Bornemann and Meyer regard this as the original form of the text; this construction, however, would connect with . . of Act 7:14. [ . in A. C. E. Cod. Sin. and adopted by Lach. Tisch. Alf.Tr.] In the same verse, Tischendorf cancels , without sufficient reason, and in opposition to all the authorities. [Lach. retains this reading as genuine; Alford inserts it in the text, but in brackets. Cod. Sin. reads .Tr.]
[7]Act 7:16. a. [in H. before . and adopted in the text. rec. not recognizing the attraction (Meyer). Tr.], is plainly a correction; the reading [in A. B. C. D. E. Cod. Sin., and adopted by the recent editors] is sufficiently attested, both critically and grammatically.
[8]Act 7:16. b. [of text. rec.] is, doubtless, the original reading; for both . in B. C. and some versions, and . in A. E. and other authorities, are evidently corrections, suggested by the opinion that this name here [as well as in the beginning of the same verse (Meyer)], indicated a place and not a person. [Lachm. reads ; Tisch. and Alf. with D. H. . as text. rec.Cod. Sin. reads ., before which a later band (C) inserted .Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The History of Stephen is continued. He preacheth before the Council; is interrupted in the Midst of his Discourse by his Enemies; dragged forth from before the Council, and stoned.
Act 7:1
Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
The chapter opens with the demand of the high priest, that Stephen should answer to the charges brought against him; or rather, he takes the matter as already granted, and saith, are these things so? Not in the least overawed by the wonderful sight, which he, and all that sat in the council saw, (as related in the foregoing chapter,) in the glory like an angel on Stephen’s countenance; the faithful servant of the Lord, was, in the mind of this time-serving high priest, already condemned. He only waited to hear somewhat, which might, with a little more plausibility, call forth his sentence. Under these impressions, he cried out, as with an holy indignation, are these things so?
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
St. Stephen’s Death
Act 7:55
Stephen is the first of whom we read that he died after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and entered into his glory. The first martyr was now to obtain his crown of life. Now it is a remarkable thing that, with the exception of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, the death of St. Stephen is the only death about which we have any details in the New Testament Scriptures. We read that Stephen was filled with the Holy Ghost. Now what did the Holy Spirit do for Stephen?
I. It enabled him to see Jesus. This is the precious eye-salve which will enable us to see our Lord. The natural man understandeth not the things of the Spirit of God, but God reveals them to us through His Spirit. When Stephen looked up above all the sorrow and the suffering that was gathering round him, what was it that the Holy Spirit enabled him to see? (1) In the first place, you are told, he saw ‘the heavens opened’. (2) He saw Jesus. (3) He saw Jesus ‘standing’. (4) He ‘saw the glory of God’. This was what a man filled with the Holy Ghost saw. Can we see it when we have to suffer?
II. The Holy Ghost enabled Stephen not only to see Jesus, but to pray to Jesus. It is always when we are most suffering and most tried that we lay firmest hold of the sympathy and love of the Incarnate Christ of God.
III. The Holy Spirit taught Stephen to trust Jesus. ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ He, as it were, gave his spirit over into the hands of Jesus Christ, so that Jesus Christ might do what He pleased with him.
IV. It enabled him also to imitate Jesus. As he died he breathed out the Lord Jesus Christ’s own prayer, ‘Lord, lay not this sin to their charge’. The Holy Spirit taught Stephen to imitate the forgiving love of Jesus, it taught Stephen to pray for his murderers, even as Jesus prayed. We need not wait till death for the Holy Spirit to teach us those four things.
E. A. Stuart, The New Commandment and other Sermons, vol. vii. p. 57.
St. Stephen’s Vision
Act 7:55
Let us note one or two lessons for ourselves.
I. We are to see the same Jesus Standing at the Right Hand of God standing with eyes fixed on His servants in their conflict below, ever ready, when need comes, to show Himself to them, to inspirit them by the vision of Himself, to fill them with His own courage, His own calm, His own mind, His own peace. Christ has not gone away from where St. Stephen saw Him. Christ did not do anything for St. Stephen, or in St. Stephen, which He will not do for you, and in you.
II. A Miraculous Calm, a real Supernatural Peace, amid the most Outrageous Catastrophes, Troubles, and Violences, is a Thing which a Servant of God may Pray for in his soul, as much as ever men of old came and asked Christ to work miracles on their bodies. Stephen’s dying body lay mangled and smashed on the hard earth; yet his soul was passing away as peacefully as our consciousness fades out in our falling asleep. That was a miracle if ever there was one; a miracle wrought by the power of Christ on the mind and soul of Stephen. And it was written for our admonition, that we may know what miracles Christ is standing ready to work still upon the minds and souls of His people now.
III. Observe how Christ Timed this Visible Manifestation of Himself in His active working and supply of supernatural strength to His suffering servant. Up to this moment, Christ had not openly manifested Himself in His glory and His exaltation. Now, at the outbreak of persecution, He lets Himself be seen. The violent death of the first Christian departure opens heaven, and we see the exalted form of the Victor over death.
The Vision of Christ
Act 7:55
The appeal of our faith is not to feeling, but to fact. The Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Ascension of our Lord are facts of history attested by evidence as complete and as satisfactory as can be adduced in support of any other facts of history on record. No more striking illustration of them is afforded in Scripture than by this story of the death of St Stephen, the first on the roll of ‘the noble army of martyrs ‘of the Christian Church. Here, indeed, was a practical result of the ascension in St. Stephen’s vision of his Lord.
I. How did Christ Appear to St. Stephen?
(a) Suddenly. The veil that hides the unseen world was in a moment lifted.
(b) Sublimely. The vision was glorious, the manner of it was glorious. Christ was glorified, and Christ was at the right hand of power. St. Stephen saw the glory of God, he saw an open heaven. If we did but know it, it is the grace of the glorified Christ that we are made partakers of, and it is the privilege of every Christian to live under an open heaven. Blessed is he who can rise above circumstances and trials and see that the living Christ is on the throne. In those dark hours when sorrow and suffering darken your pathway, and when the shadow of death falls upon your home, at such times if you would endure you must see Him who is invisible. To see Him is to be strong.
II. Christ was ‘Standing on the Right Hand of God’. Standing is the attitude of
(a) Interest. All heaven was standing up that day. Angels were straining their eyes to gaze. It was the attitude of interest.
(b) Respect and Honour. If we may so express it, Christ stood to welcome His brave warrior to his reward. It was to say, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord’.
(c) Intercession. Christ stood to plead. He, the great High Priest, was interceding for St. Stephen; it was the attitude of prayer. ‘I have prayed for thee, Stephen, that thy faith fail not.’ He was praying that he might fight this last battle and win the day.
(d) Interference. We shall not be wrong if we say that Christ stood to restrain the fury of the foe. It was the attitude, not of indifference, but of interference. ‘Thus far shalt thou come and no further.’ Certainly Christ measured the flight of every stone. The stones rained like hail, but only those struck Stephen that Christ allowed to reach him. As the soldier says, ‘Every bullet has its billet.’ Do you suppose Christ was not watching every blow that fell on the martyr’s quivering frame? He did not stop the stoning, but He certainly controlled it. He would not rob His servant of ‘the ruby crown,’ and therefore the martyrdom went on; but He would take care that every detail of His death was supervised.
III. What were the Effects of the Vision? It gave St. Stephen:
(a) Courage. He was dying for the Truth and he knew it.
(b) Confidence. He died calling upon the name of the Lord.
(c) Conformity. Was there ever such likeness to the Lord? We remember Christ’s words, ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do’ (St. Luk 23:34 ). And what do we read here? ‘Lord, lay not this sin to their charge’ (ver. 60). St. Stephen forgave his murderers. That is the highest round in the ladder. There is nothing higher in Christian life than to love your enemies. When we have come to that, we have reached the only Christian perfection which is attainable here.
(d) Calmness. Then there was calmness. ‘When he had said this he fell asleep’ (ver. 60). If we are Christ’s then death is not death; it is sleep.
Martyrdom of St. Stephen
Act 7:55
The life and death of St. Stephen, whom we commemorate today, are full of lessons for those who would be faithful, loyal, and true Christian workers.
I. The Qualification for Service. St. Stephen could bear his witness to the Lord in the midst of an ungodly and unbelieving world, where everything seemed against him, because he was ‘full of the Holy Ghost’. The great need of the Church today is of men and women who are so filled with the Holy Ghost that they must testify for Christ in whatever circumstances they find themselves placed. No one needs to pray more earnestly than the Christian worker, ‘O God, for Jesus Christ’s sake give me thy Holy Spirit’. No real effective service for Christ can be done by any of us unless we have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. That is the first and greatest qualification for service.
II. The Inspiration for Service. And as we go on bearing testimony for the Master we need to get fresh strength, fresh inspiration every day. Whence may it be obtained? St. Stephen ‘looked up stedfastly into heaven,’ and there he saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. No wonder, with that precious vision before Him, he testified more potently than he had ever done, and that when he was stoned he could pray for his murderers. If we want to feel an inspiration for service, if we want to be strengthened for our work, let us always ‘look up’ even to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith. It is those who keep their eyes on the ground, and contemplate the difficulties and trials of service, who become weak and ineffective. Ever look up! That is one message St. Stephen gives us today.
III. The Reward of Service. St. Stephen had his reward, even though his life seemed a failure. To him was granted the blessed privilege of being the first Christian martyr, and so long as the world lasts so long will his name be honoured. But the greatest of all rewards was that just when the last stone killed his body he ‘fell asleep,’ and awoke in the Paradise of God. There he saw the King in His beauty. And that reward may be ours. And, oh, the glory and the joy of it! ‘The sufferings of this present time,’ says St. Paul, whom we may well believe was more or less prepared for the vision that overtook him as Saul on the way to Damascus by what he had seen of the constancy and faith of St. Stephen, ‘are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us’. May it be ours so to work for Christ and so to suffer with Him that we may hereafter reign with Him.
Reference. VII. 65, 56. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii. No. 740.
Supreme Moments
Act 7:56
I want to ask three questions about this declaration. They are questions that can be answered broadly, definitely, and to those of us who want healing they can be answered most healingly, so as to recover us from the plague of unbelief and send us forth, after, it may be, some deep dipping in God’s own river, with our flesh as the flesh of a little child.
I. The first question is, Who saw the heavens opened? It would be a poor answer to reply, The name of the man was Stephen. I do not care for his name; that is not the man of whom I am in quest. His name is nothing to me if it simply be so many letters written on so much paper. If that were the man, then why do not all see the heavens opened? But that is not the man how is he described in the text? ‘A man full of the Holy Ghost’ That is the keyword. Do not tell me about Stephen or Peter and James and John; these are but so many vocables or mean syllables, having on them, considered strictly in themselves, no morning dew, and there exudes from them, in themselves strictly limited and considered, no fragrance for the inhalation of the whole world. The name is right: but what is the character? Everything depends upon character. Stephen might have been called by any other name, so might any of the Apostles: but what is the inner and permanent quantity? We have the answer in the text: ‘A man full of the Holy Ghost’; a man bathed in the Holy Ghost, plunged as if in an infinite ocean of bliss. We want to begin at the wrong end; we want to see the heavens opened, and then we will believe in the Holy Ghost; we want to see the blessed God standing out on some infinite glorious beam of light, and then we will believe in the Godhead. Why should we invert the way of Providence? why should we attempt to make a small turnpike road marked Private No Thoroughfare, which we ourselves alone can tread? The law is laid down; there is no alteration of the terms; ‘full of the Holy Ghost’ is the condition of all beneficent power.
That is my first question, and its answer: Who saw the heavens opened? The answer is: ‘A man full of the Holy Ghost’.
II. I will ask a second question: When did this man, full of the Holy Ghost, see the heavens opened? The answer is threefold. (1) First, after a great testimony. I do not know where to find the equal of this grand oration delivered by Stephen, the first martyr of the cross. When the people heard Stephen they took up stones to stone him. Here is the double effect of true preaching; the great joy of those who believe in its doctrine, and the mortal hatred of those who are averse to its discipline. We should be rich in our own historians. The great Apostles built themselves upon historical foundations. Wherever the Apostle Paul was called upon to preach, he said: ‘Men, brethren, and fathers, I will tell you how the case stands; I was in such and such a place, with such and such a purpose, and such and such was the issue’. Historical, personal, experimental that is the true preaching, to know that though the form may not be autobiographical, yet such fire can only be accounted for by internal conviction, passionate enthusiasm, and personal certitude as to the reality of friendship with God.
(2) And in the next place the heavens were opened to the expiring martyr when he was in apparent defeat. He had delivered his speech, and it would appear almost as if everybody had left his side. The case was going against him; the case, likening it to a written brief or testimony, was torn to pieces before his eyes and thrown away and spat upon before the fire seized it to consume it for ever. It was then the dying martyr saw the heavens opened. Fear not them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do; but fear Him Who can cast or kill both body and soul in hell.
(3) And thirdly, and last of all, it was when heaven seemed to have abandoned him. So the unbelievers have mocked the martyr; so they have said in wickedness: God cared nothing for His martyr.
III. My third question is, What did the great vision for Stephen? It enabled him to offer the finest priestly prayer but one recorded in biblical history. ‘And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge’; and then the weary man ‘fell asleep’. That was one of the supreme miracles: the stones struck him, the blood flowed, life reeled, and in these last moments the grace of God so operated upon Stephen’s heart that he forgave his enemies and asked God to forgive them, saying, ‘Lord, lay not this sin to their charge’. It was an echo of the cross, it was the cross glorified. This was a mightier deliverance than if some strong angel had avenged his suffering on the spot and delivered him back to life again, he not having the spirit of forgiveness.
Joseph Parker.
References. VII. 56. S. H. Fleming, Fifteen Minute Sermons for the People, p. 143. W. P. S. Bingham, Sermons on Easter Subjects, p. 204. F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. v. p. 59. Ibid. The Acts of the Apostles, p. 85. Expositor (4th Series), vol. iii. p. 31; ibid. (5th Series), vol. ii. p. 172; ibid. (6th Series), vol. v. p. 80. VII. 58. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. li. No. 2948. Expositor (5th Series), vol. iii. p. 343; ibid. vol. v. p. 441.
The First Christian Martyr (St. Stephen’s Day)
Act 7:59
St. Augustine dwells on the significance of this festival occurring on the day after that of our Lord’s Nativity, alluding to the martyrdom of a saint being called his birthday. ‘The birthday of the Lord,’ he says, ‘when He put on the clothing of our flesh, that of His servant, when he laid that clothing aside; that of the Lord when He was made like unto us, that of His servant when he was brought most near unto Christ. For as Christ being born was united unto Stephen, so Stephen by dying was united unto Christ.’ Why has the Church assigned to St. Stephen the first place among the three festivals that immediately follow Christmas? Not simply because he was the first martyr. There are other reasons, and they are significant.
I. As an Encouragement to those in the Lowest Station and Office. St. Stephen was a deacon only, a newly-made deacon, and therefore the very lowest in ecclesiastical degree.
II. As an Encouragement to All Believers. Having never known Christ in the flesh, but coming to view as it were after the days of the Son of Man upon earth were ended, St. Stephen may be considered to represent the whole body of believers who have lived since the Gospel.
III. He was the First Believer in Christ who Sealed his Faith with his Blood. He reminds us that the sufferings of Christ’s martyrs are very precious indeed in Christ’s sight; that the crown of martyrdom brings him who wears it very near indeed to his Lord.
IV. St. Stephen was a Martyr both in Will and Deed. The Holy Innocents underwent martyrdom in deed but not in will, and the Evangelist St. John in will but not in deed.
The Martyrdom of Stephen (St. Stephen’s Day)
Act 7:59
The early martyrs were affectionately revered by the members of the early Christian Church because of their sincere and lasting devotion to the cause of their glorified Lord. Hence, among others, the anniversary of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, which occurred in the thirty-fourth year of the Christian era, was duly and meetly observed. Some have spoken of him not only as the first of Christian martyrs, but as the greatest of all Christian martyrs.
I. His Character. He was a man of good repute. This is evident from the office he sustained in the Apostolic Church. He was elected to be a deacon in it; and, according to the Fathers, he held the primacy over the other deacons. He was also a man of strong faith. It is Divinely said that he was ‘full of faith’. This kept the eye of his soul fixed on Jesus, fitted him for earth, and matured him for heaven. He was likewise a man of deep piety. St. Luke affirms that he was ‘full of the Holy Ghost’. Full of light and love because full of Deity, his peace flowed like a river. He was a man of great courage. The advocacy of the truth as it is in Jesus exposed him to fierce persecution, but he stood up nobly for it. And when he exclaimed with rapture, ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God,’ they stopped their ears, and with one accord fell upon him, cast him out of the city, and stoned him.
II. His Martyrdom. The tragic punishment they inflicted upon him was one legally denounced against notorious criminals. This was the punishment of a blasphemer, and to this awful kind of death St. Stephen yielded himself. Yet how fiendish the conduct of the men who accomplished it! But this death, albeit inhuman and diabolical, was met with prayer. No better proof could be given of the power and goodness of the religion of Jesus Christ. Death, though it came to Stephen in this merciless way, was but a sleep. This beautiful representation is indicative of rest and peace. Stephen had done his work, had accomplished his warfare. ‘Absent from the body,’ he was ‘present with the Lord.’
Act 7:59
In the midst of the acute bodily pain which he endured during that night and the succeeding morning, he expressed his resignation and confidence chiefly in the language of Scripture, and often repeated favourite sentences from the Psalms in Hebrew…. Perceiving nature to be nearly exhausted, his friends requested him to give them a token that he departed in peace; upon which he repeated the last words of the martyr Stephen, and breathed gently away.
McCrie’s Life of Andrew Melville, vol. ii. p. 440.
References. VII. 59. J. Hartill, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlix. p. 116. R. W. Hiley, A Year’s Sermons, vol. iii. p. 155. S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for Saints’ Days, p. 26. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlv. No. 2644. VII. 59, 60. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx. No. 1175. VII. 60. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Notes of Sermons for the Year, pt. i. p. 33. VIII. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vi. p. 118. VIII. 1. Ibid. (7th Series), vol. v. p. 203. VIII. 1-4. Ibid. vol. ii. p. 388. VIII. 2-5. R. F. Horton, The Hidden God, p. 127. VIII. 4, 5. F. D. Maurice, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 96. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxiv. No. 2044. VIII. 5. E. J. Boyce, Parochial Sermons, p. 143. VIII. 8. R. H. Baynes, True Revival, p. 42. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xl. No. 2352. VIII. 10. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 276. VIII. 12. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. v. p. 45. VIII. 14. Ibid. vol. iii. p. 351. VIII. 16. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. x. p. 249; ibid. (6th Series), vol. v. p. 43. VIII. 17. E. A. Stuart, His Dear Son and other Sermons, p. 145. VIII. 18. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ix. p. 83. VIII. 21. B. Fay Mills, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlix. p. 378. H. Allen, Penny Pulpit, No. 1592, p. 131. VIII. 22. W. Forster, Penny Pulpit, No. 1649, p. 233. Expositor (7th Series), vol. vi. p. 274. VIII. 26. A. G. Mortimer, The Church’s Lessons for the Christian Year, pt. iii. p. 55. T. F. Crosse, Sermons, p. 9. VIII. 26-38. J. Bush, Joseph Bush: A Memorial, p. 138. VIII. 26-39. E. Bersier, Sermons in Paris, p. 152. VIII. 26-40. C. Perren, Sermon Outlines, p. 375. Expositor (6th Series), vol. ix. p. 127. VIII. 27, 28. H. Jones, Christian World Pulpit, vol. 1. p. 92.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Chapter 16
Prayer
Almighty God, we do not know thy way: it is in the sea, it is in the great waters, it is in the midst of the firmament of heaven, and the clouds are the dust of thy feet, and thine eye shineth like lightning from the east even to the west. We have heard of thee, and our hearts have trembled with fear. We have thought of thee, and our spirits have glowed with love. Sometimes clouds and darkness are round about thee; sometimes the light is thy robe. We cannot tell what thou art, or what thou wilt be to us at any moment, but this great prayer we can utter through Jesus Christ our sacrifice: Give us thy Holy Spirit, and it shall be well with us. Let thy grace dwell in our hearts, beautiful as a guiding cloud in the daytime, radiant and warm as a flame of fire in the night season. If our hearts are filled with thy grace, there shall be no room for the enemy. Fill our hearts with thy truth, and our minds with thy light, as thy truth and thy light are known in the Son of God, and in our soul there shall be the seal of heaven.
We thank thee for thy book, so grand in doctrine, so wondrous in its outlook, so tender in its benedictions, so beautiful in all its gospels. May we know it, love it, reproduce it in our lives, and show that we are men in whom is the indwelling and inspiring God. May our life be a secret like thine own; may men take knowledge of us that we have been with Jesus and have learned of him. May we surprise them not by our information, but by our wisdom. Behind and above all that we say, may there be a mystery of light and of love, not to be solved by the common understanding. May we in Christ, thy Son, our Saviour, have bread that the world knoweth not of, and of the fulness of grace may we eat and drink abundantly day by day. Thou hast led us out of sin, and through a long wilderness of education and discipline. Lead us into Canaan’s gardens, into the wider liberty, into the ampler spaces, and may our souls enjoy all the comfort and hope of spiritual freedom. Give us understanding of thy word. Show us how thy book is full of seed; show us that nothing in thy book has come to fruition; that we have in thy book the great seed house. May we sow the seed in good and honest hearts, and may it be watered with dew from heaven, warmed by the sun of thy righteousness and love, and may it bring forth not only according to its kind, but according to the kind of soil in which it is sown. Then shall thy church be a beautiful garden, a wondrous landscape with all beauteous growths adorning and enriching it, and heaven will smile to see a world so blest.
Thou knowest us altogether, our sharpest pain, our dullest care, the anxiety that gnaws the inmost heart, the joy that sings in the spring air like a bird, the hope that lures us with heavenly persuasion on to some nobler conquest and greater peace. According to our necessity and various condition, do thou now command thy blessing to rest upon every soul. We thank thee for all thy love; it comes before the rising of the sun, it remains through the shining of the stars, it is never withheld. We live upon it; without it we must needs die. Show us that though we are here but for a little while thou art preparing us for great revelations and supreme destinies; and in view of the joy that has yet to be, may we forget our little sorrows, may our woes be lost in the sea of gladness which thou hast prepared for us.
The Lord hold the light above his own book whilst we read it. The Lord cause a light to shine out of the book whilst we peruse it. The Lord turn over the pages with his own fingers. The Lord whisper to us the meaning of the spirit whilst we read the letter. The Lord speak to us from the cross of forgiveness, pardon, absolution, complete, entire, final; and to the release of forgiveness add the joy of sanctification. Amen.
Act 7:1-53
1. Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
2. And he said, Men, [omit Men ] brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory [the term is applied to the Incarnate Word, Joh 1:14 ] appeared unto our father [Stephen if even a proselyte might use this expression] Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, [his ancestral home was called Ur of the Chaldees] before he dwelt [the Greek word implies a settled residence] in Charran,
3. And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. [The destination of the emigrants was known before they started from Ur.]
4. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldans, [with Babylon for its capital] and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed [caused him to migrate] 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, [ Gen 15:13-14 ] 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, [with great substance] and serve me in this place, [these words are not in the promise given to Abraham, but are taken from Exo 3:12 .]
8. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: [given the year before Isaac was born] 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, [the same word is used Act 17:5 ] sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was with him, [the argument being that as God’s presence is not circumscribed, neither should his worship be confined to place].
10. And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour 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 [the oldest MSS. omit the land of”] and Chanaan, 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 [before he himself went away from Canaan into Egypt].
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 Sychem, [Shechem] and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.
17. But when [as] the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn [vouchsafed] to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt,
18. Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph.
19. The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated [“made them to cut a great many channels for the river, and set them to build pyramids, forced them to learn all sorts of mechanical arts, and to accustom themselves to hard labour.” Josephus. ] our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.
20. In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father’s house three months:
21. And when he was cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son.
22. And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.
23. And when he was full forty years old, [the verb in the original intimates that the forty years were just being completed] it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.
24. And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian:
25. For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.
26. And the next day he showed himself unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?
27. But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?
28. Wilt thou kill me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday?
29. Then fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, [probably the peninsula on which Mount Sinai stands] where he begat two sons [Gersham and Eliezer].
30. And when forty years [making Moses eighty years old] were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
31. When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,
32. Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold.
33. Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.
34. I have seen, I have seen [the Greek is an attempt to imitate an emphatic Hebrew construction, and is literally “having seen, I have seen”] the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.
35. This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send [the verb is in the perfect tense in the original] to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
36. He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.
37. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38. This is he, that was in the church [congregation] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
39. To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,
40. Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
41. And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.
42. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?
43. Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
44. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
45. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
46. Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.
47. But Solomon built him an house.
48. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
49. Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
50. Hath not my hand made all these things?
51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53. Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
The Defence of Stephen
HOW does this speech happen to be here? It is a long one. Who put it down? It reads like a verbatim report; who reported it? It would be easy for the memory to carry a sentence or two; but who could record so long and so highly-informed a speech as the one which is given in this chapter? There was a young man listening to this speech with no friendly ear. His name was Saul. It is supposed that afterward, when he became Paul, he related this speech to Luke, who wrote it in this form. It is not a correct report. No man can report chain lightning. You may catch a little here and there of such eloquence, but the speech itself, in all the elements that lifted it up into historic importance, it was not in the power of memory to carry, or in the power of recollection to reproduce. This is not Stephen’s speech, and you must not therefore hold him responsible for it; they did not give Stephen an opportunity of revising his speech. He spoke, and they hurried him on; the punctuation did not undergo the criticism of Stephen’s eye. The speech itself is full of historic blunders and contradictions. It is Saul’s recollection of Stephen’s defence. It is little or nothing more. You have only to compare the Old Testament statements with the statements which Stephen is said to have made, and you will see at once discrepancy after discrepancy, and in one or two cases you will see blank and palpable contradiction. This gives us another view of inspiration than that which we have sometimes too narrowly held. The speech is true, and yet not factual. What is said here is Biblical, but not textual. There is no statement here made that is not spiritually true, and yet there are few sentences in the elaborate apology that may not be challenged on some technical ground. Some persons imagine that they are inspired when they are only technical. They forget that you may not have a single text in support of what you are stating, and yet may have the whole Bible in defence of it. The Bible is not a text, it is a tone; it is not a piece of technical evidence, it is an inspiration, a wind blowing where it listeth, to carry with it everywhere life, and freshness, and liberty.
Looking at this speech therefore not as a verbatim report, but as a rsum given by an unfriendly hearer, but a most friendly reporter, we may take it as giving the principal features in Stephen’s character. The man who reported this speech to Luke made it the basis and the model of his own immortal apologies. Truly we sometimes borrow from unacknowledged sources; certainly we are sometimes indebted to unknown influences for some of our best inspirations. To think that a man whom they appointed with six others to watch over the ministration of tables should have become the first Christian martyr apologist, and should have given the model for the greatest speeches ever delivered by man, namely, the speeches of Paul himself when put upon his trial and defence, is surely a very miracle of Providence! How little Stephen knew what he was doing. Who really knows the issue and full effect of any action or speech? Who can tell what little sentences are quoted in the sick room, what suggestions are taken from the speaker’s lips and sent in letters to those far away and ill at ease? Who can tell what echoes of spent eloquence follow the hearer through his daily engagements, and cheer him in days of dejection? Life is not marked off in so many inches and done with; it is full of reference, allusion, collateral and incidental bearing, so that an act done is not self-complete, but may be the beginning of endless other acts nobler than itself. Compare the great orations of Paul with the speech of Stephen, and you will be struck with the manner in which the scholar reproduced the master, and how Stephen transfused himself into Paul’s very spirit, and was under God the making of that sublime Apostle.
I think it is fair criticism to infer the man from the speech on all occasions. It is sometimes proverbially said, “The voice is the man.” We may enlarge that common saying, and declare with wisdom, I believe, that the speech is the character. Following this suggestion, what kind of man was Stephen, judged by the speech which is reported in this chapter? Accused of blasphemy, he is called upon for his defence. How does he reveal himself? Surely we may in the first instance describe him as a man well versed in the Scriptures. From beginning to end his speech is a Scriptural one; quotation follows quotation like shocks of thunder. There is very little of Stephen himself until he comes to the application of his Scriptural references. Stephen was a man who had read his Bible; therein he separates himself from the most of modern people. Personally I cannot call to mind a single person who ever read the Bible and disbelieved it. It belongs peculiarly to the Bible to get hold of its readers little by little; subtly it gets round about their souls, so that when they come to the amen of the Apocalypse they find themselves spiritually, if not literally, on their knees in homage to the Spirit of the Book. We all know numerous persons who abuse the Bible who have never read it. Such opposition is natural, and when lunacy becomes philosophy it will be about the most rational course to pursue. Not that such persons have not read parts of the Bible; such parts they have perused without understanding; they misquote every passage which they cite, and they make imperfect reference to every Biblical proposition they undertake to dispute. They do not distinguish between verse and Bible, fractions and whole numbers. Who really knows the Bible by heart? It is the boast of some of us that we can recite from end to end five plays of Shakespeare, Who can recite the Book of Psalms? You call upon your little children to recite nonsense verses, and it is well enough that now and then the little ones should do so. Which of your children can recite a chapter of the Gospel according to John? Where is the man who can repeat word for word one of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians? And would not some of us be posed if we were called upon at a moment’s notice to recite six verses of Paul’s letter to the Romans? Only the men who know the Bible should quote it. Only those who are steeped in the Scriptures, saturated through and through with Divine truth, should undertake to express any opinion about it. This is the law in all other criticism, and in common justice it ought to be the law in relation to the Book which we believe to be the inspired revelation of God. Is this not just? Are we asking for anything in the Church which would not be granted in the Polytechnic and the Lyceum? To undertake to discuss an author without knowing him, knowing him within his very spirit and purpose, is to trifle with the occasion, not to rise to its dignity and responsibility. When the Church knows its Bible well, we may trust it anywhere. When other voices arise to charm its ear, what piping voices they will be, what pitiful moans and feeble notes, after the infinite thunder and ineffable music of Moses and the Prophets, of the Psalms, and Evangelists of Christ?
Having this complete knowledge of Scripture, Stephen next shows himself to have been a man who took a broad and practical view of history. It is as difficult to find a man who has read history as to find a man who has read the Bible. History itself is a term which needs definition. A man does not know history because he can glibly repeat all the kings of England from the Conquest until now that is not history. We justly ask our younger students to construct a party. Giving them this or that Pope as president of the Council, we say, collect around him the leading men of his day. It is interestng to watch how the table is supplied with visitors, how every chair is filled up, and how the symposium is completed with accuracy but that is not history. You will find that history is not a letter, and is not to be reported in letters: it is a tone, an inspiration, a subtle, impalpable, all-involving something full of voices, full of music, vibrating, throbbing with indefinable life and energy. You do not learn history from the books. From the books you learn the facts, but, in a sense which might be defended at length if requisite, having ascertained the facts, you must make history. The novelist is a better historian than the mere annalist, because history is an atmosphere. It is not only a panorama of passing incidents and anecdotes great and small; it is a spirit which only the wizard can evoke and express. Stephen lived in history. His was not a little rootless life that lay on the surface, that the sun could smite with withering fire. Stephen belonged to the past, and therefore to the present. Stephen was a member of a great and noble household, he was a link in a far-stretching chain, he was an element in a great composition. Why should we live the shallow life of men who have no history behind them? We are encompassed by a great cloud of witnesses. Behind us, the undying dead; beyond us, the immortal living. By what right do we dissociate ourselves from currents, historic and providential? We have no right to disennoble ourselves, and commit an act of dismembership which separates us from the agony, the responsibility, and the destiny of the race. In Christ we have all to be one. “The whole family in heaven and on earth” was the language of Paul; and that language ought to be ours if we would realize what it is to be sons of God, mighty in the Scriptures, and inspired by history.
Stephen was, in the third place, a man who was forced into action by his deep convictions. That is a word which has somehow slipped out of our vocabulary. Why should I say slipped out of our vocabulary? It has only done so because it has slipped out of our life. Who now has any convictions? Life is now a game, a series of expedients. It consists of a succession of experiments. It is a speculation, a bet, a fool’s wager, a leap in the dark. It is not an embodied and sacrificial conviction. In the old, old days, men used to live because they could not help it. In those days they spoke because they believed. They had no necessity to get up a speech, to prepare and arrange it in words that would offend nobody, and would be recollected by no hearer. In old Christian days men spoke as naturally and as necessarily as they breathed. Without faith we cannot have eloquence; words innumerable, but not speech of the heart, sparks from the life, flashes from the inward and living altar. It is not enough to have information. It is not enough, my young brother, preparing for the pulpit, to have an encyclopaedia of mere knowledge of letters and of books; you must have the believing and the understanding heart, the resolute will, which can only come from the Holy Ghost. If you believe Christianity, you will not need any exhortation to speak it. Speech about Christianity, where it is known and loved, is the best necessity of this life. The fire burns, the heart muses, and the tongue speaks. If timidly, still clearly, and if timidly, not with the timidity of cowardice, but with the self restraint of modesty. It was not enough for Stephen; hence in the fifty-first verse you find that Stephen was a man whose information burned into religious earnestness. Having made his quotation he turned round as preachers dare not turn round now. “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” It was an offensive speech. It was unpardonable then, and it would be unpardonable now. Why was it unpardonable? Because it was truth made pointed. It was doctrine personalized, and that no man will ever endure. No man goes to church to be spoken to. There is not a man amongst us would be here today if he knew that the preacher would personally rebuke his sins. The man who would listen all day with delight to an eloquent malediction upon the depravity of the whole world would leave the church if you told him he was a drunkard or a thief. We live in generalities. So preaching is now dying, or it is becoming a trick in eloquence, or it is offering a grand opportunity for saying nothing about nothing. It used to turn the world upside down. It used to be followed by blows, and stones, and fires, and racks.
Stephen shows us the model of the great speaker; we need no book of rhetoric beyond this great apology. Called upon, he addresses his auditors with courtesy as “Men, brethren, and fathers.” He begins calmly, with the serenity of conscious power. He quotes from undisputed authority. Every step he takes is a step in advance. There is not in all his narration one circular movement. Having accumulated his facts and put them in the most vivid manner, he suddenly, like the out-bursting of a volcano, applies the subject, saying, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost. As your fathers did, so do ye.” Are these the people he described at the beginning of his speech? Then he called them, “Men, brethren, and fathers.” This is the law of argumentative progress. Begin courteously, and beg the confidence and respectful attention of your hearers. At the beginning, before they had heard the statement, they are, “Men, brethren, and fathers,” but your speech will be their responsibility. They will not be the same at the end of the speech as they were at the beginning. So the hearers who were “Men, brethren, and fathers” in the exordium, are “Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears” in the peroration! A preacher may begin as courteously as he pleases, but having got out the truth, having showed what God is and has done, and wants to be done, his conclusion should be a judgment as well as a gospel. Is it possible for any man today to be a Stephen? Why not? The Bible is still here. Every one of us can read it in the tongue in which he was born, and every one of us may by the grace and gift of the Holy Ghost have a calm and sovereign confidence in the truth. That is what is wanted. Do not put your case tentatively, interrogatively, suggestively. The Bible is either a revelation or it is an imposition. It is either the truth or the aggravation of all falsehood. Range yourselves upon the one side or the other, and, having the truth of God, speak it. But how did Stephen know all about the case? Was he, as suggested, the second disciple who travelled on that eventide from Jerusalem to Emmaus? None can decide that question. There is some inferential evidence in favor of the view. For my part, I think it is most probably true. On that, however, no definite and final opinion can be pronounced by any man. But suppose that Stephen was the very disciple when the two walked together and were sad, and as they went together Jesus himself drew near, but their eyes were holden that they should not know him. Having inquired into the circumstances of the case, he said, “Oh, fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken,” and, beginning at Moses and the prophets, he expounded to them in all Scripture the things concerning himself. What if Saul reported Stephen, and Stephen reported Christ, and so the great Gospel goes on from man to man, from tongue to tongue, till the last man hears it, and his heart burns within him!
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Chapter 17
Prayer
( Easter Sunday. )
O Thou who hast thyself risen from the dead, raise us up also with thyself that we may die no more. We bless thee for the word of resurrection, for the gospel of restoration, and for the hope that death itself shall die and the whole creation be filled with joyous life. If we be risen with Christ we will set our affections on things above. Help us in this way to show how truly we have been buried with Christ, and how certainly we have been raised again with the Son of God. May we know the fellowship of his sufferings and the power of his resurrection. Crucified with Christ, may we also rise with him. Having known his shame, may we share his glory. Help us to overcome in the great battle of life, that we may sit down with Christ upon his throne.
Thou dost bring the years round from day to day, with all their sacred memories, with all their solemn inspirations, and with all their ennobling and instructive lessons. May ours be the seeing eyes, the hearing ears, and the hearts that do understand. Let nothing of thy providence be wasted upon us. Let the whole ministry of thy grace operate constantly in our hearts, subduing every evil passion, controlling every unholy thought, and lifting our whole life up to the sublimity of the life of Christ. We bless thee for all thy care. May we never forget thy benefits. Make our memories quick to retain every gracious impression, and whilst our memory remembers may our hope strengthen itself upon nourishment from heaven, that it may live through all the night of life, and finally enter into the joy of heaven’s own morning.
Thou hast reminded us this day of the open grave of the Son of God. He is not here. He is risen. We will not seek the living among the dead. Our hearts will fly towards the heavens where the Christ of God now pleads and prays, and we will breathe our prayer through His infinite intercession, and because of his priesthood the answer to our desire shall be worthy of thyself, thou giver of all good. Our hope is still in the Cross; our confidence is in the abandoned tomb. Because Christ died we shall live, and because he rose again from the dead death shall have no dominion over us. Having this hope in us, may we purify ourselves, and set ourselves earnestly to all the high service of thy kingdom. May we not be slothful; may we rather be reckoned among those who redeem the time, and who prevent the rising of the sun, and toil till the night has fallen. Blessed is that servant who shall be found waiting and watching and serving when his Lord cometh. Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly. Delay not thy coming. The earth is wearying for thee, and the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Come as thou wilt, and when thou wilt, only make us ready to receive thee with the eager love which should possess the hearts of men redeemed.
Comfort thy people. Speak a work of tender consolation to the heart that is filled with trouble. To some, life is a river of tears, a long pain, a dark and terrible disappointment, an agony which death alone can heal. Surely thou knowest such, and today, when the heavens are glad with a new hymn, and the earth is young with a new spring, and a new hope, thou wilt find them out in their hiding-places, and make them also glad.
Help us to hold on steadfastly during the few years that remain. May there be no break in our constancy; may our fidelity be without flaw or hesitation; may our life, redeemed with blood, spare not itself in the service of thy truth; and may our whole hope in Christ be made glad at last with the revelation and the enjoyment of his own heaven. Amen.
The Defence of Stephen
Act 7
THE first use we made of this speech was to inquire into the character of the speaker. I propose to recur now to this great apology, and to use it in the second place for the purpose of showing the method of Divine revelation and providence. Taking this great speech as our guide, what is the method of God’s revelation to His creatures and the method of His providence over them? Let us see whether what is related here agrees with our own observation and experience. It may be that we can re-deliver Stephen’s great speech ourselves. If we cannot find the words of such eloquence, we can identify Stephen’s words as a fit expression of the sentiments which animate our own hearts. The first point to which attention is now called is the very point which came before us in our first study of the Acts of the Apostles. Notice how God has from the beginning made himself known to individuals. Stephen relates the great names of history. Some names are as mountains on the landscape. We start our journeys from them, we reckon our distances by them, we measure our progress according to their height. God does not reveal Himself to great crowds of men by some common revelation which ten thousand men seize at one and the same moment. So Stephen tells us that God appeared to Abram, to Joseph, to Moses, and to Solomon. This is the method of the Divine revelation all through and through history. It is in some senses a perplexing method, but we cannot deny it. We may reason about it, and fear it as we fear a great dark cloud, but there it is; and it is not there only in theology, it is there in science, in politics, in commerce, in literature, in family life, all through and through the fact that God speaks to the individual, and entrusts him with some great gospel or spiritual mystery, or of scientific and commercial progress. Why make so much ado about religious election? Why talk about election as if it were a distinctively and exclusively religious word? You find this principle of the selection of individuals as evangelists, apostles, preachers, and pastors, in agriculture, in astronomy, in statesmanship, in theology. If we could conceive valid objections against any accidental application of this doctrine of personal election, we should still have to encounter it along the whole line of human history. How is it that one man in the family has all the sense? How is it that one of your boys has all the adventure? How is it that one man is a poet and another a mathematician? How is it that one boy can never be got to stay at home and his own brother can never be got to leave home? How is it that one man speaks out the word that expresses the inarticulate thought of a generation, though all other men would have been afraid to speak it, even if they had been wise enough to discover it? Stephen therefore recognizes this great principle in the Divine revelation, that God speaks to individuals, and clothes individuals with peculiar and most solemn responsibility. In all ages God has had His prophets, apostles, evangelists, errand runners, men who have digged into the rocks and soared into the stars, and plunged through tumultuous seas to discover unknown lands. God has adopted the same method also in the kingdom of heaven. He has made some apostles, some prophets, some pastors and teachers, but the principle of individual election and coronation has been the same.
In the second place Stephen recognizes the great fact that God has constantly come along the line of surprise. Revelation has never been a commonplace. Wherever God has revealed Himself He has surprised the person on whom the revealing light has fallen. The power of surprise is one of the greatest powers at the disposal of any teacher. How to put the old as if it were the new! How to set fire to common sense so that it shall burn up into genius? How to reveal to a man his bigger and better self! How has God proceeded according to the historical narration of Stephen? To Abram he said, “Get thee out from thy country and from thy kindred.” We cannot conceive the shock of surprise with which these words would be received. Travelling then was not what travelling is now. Get thee out on foot, bind on thy sandals, take thy staff, gather together thy family, and go out, not knowing whither thou goest! No man could receive a call of that kind as a mere commonplace! It must have gone thrillingly through every fibre of the man’s being. Called to leave something positive for something promised called to give up a reality in the hope of realizing a dream! Then pass on to the case of Joseph. Stephen reminded his hearers that God gave Joseph favor and wisdom. Joseph’s life was a surprise a greater surprise to himself than to anybody that could look upon it. How was it that he always had the key of the gate? Why did men turn to him in the night-time, and ask him the way through the valley of darkness and across the mountain of gloom? How was it that he only could tell the King the meaning of the King’s dream? Then pass on to Moses. Stephen recognizes the same principle of surprise, for he reminds his hearers that God appeared unto Moses in a flaming bush not that He baptized him with the dew, not that he insensibly surrounded him with a new atmosphere, and breathed upon him a benediction without words. Moses was startled. The power of surprise was used by the Almighty to attract attention. So a bush flamed at the mountain base, and a voice said to the wanderer, Stop! Nothing but fire can stop some men! There are those to whom the dew is a gospel, there are others who require the very fire that lights the eternal throne to stop them and arouse their full attention. God knows what kind of book to give you. The book that would suit you might be an offence to your own mother. God knows what kind of ministry you need, so He has set in His Church a thousand ministries, of dew, of tenderness, of lute-like music, of pathos and tears and infinite persuasiveness, and thunder and lightning, and fire and alarm! It is not for us to compare the one with the other, but to see in such a distribution of power God’s purpose to touch every creature in the whole world.
In the third place, Stephen, looking over the whole range of human history, shows how God has all the time been overruling improbabilities and disasters. We should say that when God has called a man to service, the road would be wide, clear of all obstructions, filled with sunshine, lined with flowers, that the man leaning on God’s arm will be accompanied by the singing of birds and of angels. Nothing of the kind is true to fact. Stephen recognizes this in very distinct terms. He says that God spake in this wise, that Abram’s seed should sojourn in a strange land, and that they should bring them into bondage, and evil entreat them four hundred years! In the face of such an arrangement can there be an Almighty providence? Yes. And Joseph was selected, as we have seen, and yet he was sold into Egypt. “Godforsaken” we should say, looking at the outside only. And there were those, as we are reminded by Stephen, who evilly entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children to the end they might not live. Yet the first word was supposed to be a Divine direction! Moses himself was “cast out.” Stephen does not cover these things up or make less of them, or seek to hasten away from them as from disagreeable circumstances in the order of Divine Providence. Nay, he relates them, masses them into great black groups, and says Still the great thought went on and on! There is the majesty of the Divine Providence. Its movement is not lost in pits, and caves, and wildernesses, and rivers, and seas. The disasters are many, the sufferings are severe, the disappointments are innumerable and unendurable; still the thought goes on. Judge nothing before the time. So is it with our own life. To-day white-clothed apostles, mighty with God, the uplifting of our hands a prevailing prayer to-morrow like the beasts that perish! Living the forbidden life, eating stolen bread, living the beggar’s life, can we be the called of God? Can God be living in us and leading us onward to some great destiny? Yes! He will yet cause death itself to die. There shall be joy in the presence of the angels of God over this little sin-blighted earth, more than over ninety and nine of the planets that never knew the tragedy of sin! Do not say you are forsaken of God because you have broken every commandment of the ten. The gift of God is not a question of good behaviour as from the outside, and as measurable by the letter; it is a question of purpose, thought, supreme intent; and GOD alone is judge!
There is nothing in this review of history as conducted by Stephen that ought to startle us as a novelty, or disturb us as an improbability. God has revealed himself to individuals in the making of the steam-engine, and the spinning jenny, and the telegraph, and the telephone, and a thousand other things. He did not reveal these inventions or possible inventions to all together, but to the singular man, to the solitary student, to the one brooding mind. “The Holy Ghost hath overshadowed thee, therefore, that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the gift of God!” That is true of every miraculous conception, whether it be of the Son of God or of the last invention of progressive civilization. Do not, then, distrust the individual teacher.
There is a common sophism, which only requires to be stated to refute itself, to the effect that it is very strange that God should have kept back this or that truth until this or that man should have arisen. There is nothing in all history less strange. It is God’s common method. Yet there are those today who will tell you that it is very strange that God should have kept back his truth for nineteen hundred years, and should have revealed it to this latest of the teachers. It is a most fallacious sophism. We all know better. It is God’s plan to say to Abram, “Get thee out.” To call individual minds to his service, and to set the flame of the new revelation on the altar of the indvidual understanding. Do not fear to be surprised. Distrust commonplace rather than novelty. Astonishment would seem to be the keyword of the Divine Book. Every page is a surprise. Every syllable flames with a new light. The Lord sends us not a new book, but new readers of the book, men whose tones are comments and whose expositions are revelations. Do not succumb to misfortune. Our fathers were evil entreated, said Stephen; for four hundred years they seemed to have no deliverer. Moses was cast out; Joseph had been thrown into prison; disaster had marked the whole history of the Church. It was still God’s Church, and you are God’s child, his loved one still, though you have been evil entreated, and have done evil, and have left undone much that you ought to have done. God does not elect and disentitle according to our paltry rules and technicalities. “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” Bruised, ragged, sin-stained, tearful, worn, we may yet arrive at the city whose streets are gold and whose walls are jasper, for God’s grace is greater than man’s sin.
Mark how exactly this whole history of Stephen’s corresponds with Christ’s method of revelation and providence. We can trace the whole of the old history in the new, and entirely fit piece to piece, letter to letter, line to line. Did not Christ reveal himself to individuals? Did he not say to the Abram of his time, “Follow me?” Did he call ten thousand men with one loud call, or did he go closely to one waiting fisherman and say to him, “Come?” A greater call than was addressed to Abraham! Peter was summoned to a more honored and sublime destiny. “Follow me;” to weariness, to shame, to misunderstanding, to reproach, to abandonment, to death, to heaven! Did not Christ also use the power of surprise? When was he ever received into any town as an ordinary visitor? Who did not know his voice amongst a hundred others? Who did not wait for him to speak, and look, and act? Who was not impatient with all the multitude lest they should interrupt any sentence of this marvellous eloquence? Did not Christ also take his Church through improbabilities, disasters, and dark places? Has not his Church been evil entreated? Have not our Christian fathers been cast out? Have we not also our heroes, and sufferers, and martyrs, and crowned ones? I saw a great city, and one of the elders answered and said unto me, These are they that came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. And, lastly, was not Christ always master of the occasion? Without a place whereon to lay his head, he was still the LORD. Without a beast to ride upon, he still called himself the MASTER. Washing his disciples’ feet, he lifted himself up from his stoop to name himself LORD and MASTER. We remember our disasters, our slaveries, our punishments, our reproach, and our sorrow; still, notwithstanding all, the Church is the Lamb’s Bride, and he will marry her at the altar of the universe!
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XI
THE OFFICE OF DEACON, THE PHARISAIC PERSECUTION, STEPHEN AND SAUL TO THE FRONT, A NEW ISSUE, AND THE REJECTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE ANOINTED CHURCH BY JERUSALEM
Act 6:1-8:3
Our first topic is the creation of the office of deacon. The church was composed of Hebrews and Hellenists, or Grecians. The Hebrews were Palestinian Jews, speaking the mixed Hebrew tongue, called Aramaic, and were generally more rigid than the Hellenists in devotion to all the rites and traditions of the past.
The problem of fairly distributing the benevolent fund of the church to all the needy ones now confronted the church. There came up a complaint on the part of the Grecians, that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. That was the problem. It would not do to have the church divided on a matter of that kind, and there had to be a solution of that problem. The solution was that the apostles ordered the church as a whole to select a body of men who should attend to this financial, or secular matter; and that they would then be ordained to the work by prayer and the laying on of hands. The church thereupon elected seven men, calling them from among the Grecians, the parties from whom the complaint came, and these seven men took charge of this matter and relieved the apostles from having to consider the temporalities when all their energies should be devoted to preaching the Word. That was the solution of the problem.
Let us connect and explain the following: Act 2:45 , where they had everything common, and out of that common fund provided for all the necessitous cases of the entire congregation; Act 4:35 , where Barnabas and others sold their possessions and put the proceeds of the sale into this common fund; Act 6:1 , where complaint arose about the fairness in the distribution of this fund; Act 11:29 and Act 12:25 , where a contribution was made for the purpose of aiding the poor saints in Jerusalem; 1Co 16:1-4 , where Paul says, “As I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store . . . that no collections be made when I come,” this fund to be sent to Judea to help the poor saints; 2 Corinthians 8-9, which is devoted to the same subject; and 1Ti 5:3-11 , where Paul instructs Timothy, who was then at Ephesus, as to what kind of widows to receive on this beneficiary list.
My object in grouping these scriptures is to show more clearly than heretofore in what respect they had “all things common” that it was with regard to the necessity. Those who had abundance either gave money, or sold their property and got money, and put it into a common fund, and that fund had to be distributed among all of the necessitous cases, according as each had need.
When you study this account all the way through the New Testament, you will see that it did not approximate in meaning what the Socialists now claim for it; that it did not mean that all of the property was to be common, but that all should participate according to the ability, to create a fund common to the necessity.
We have here the lesson in church polity, that though the apostles themselves were present, the election of officers must be by the church, being congregational in form and polity, and every member of the church, male and female, being entitled to an equal vote in matters that related to the congregation. We have already found the same thing in the election of the successor to Judas. Here again it is made perfectly plain that even the twelve men, inspired of God, did not assume to elect officers of the church. They directed the church to do the electing, and they participated in the ordination. This was the institution of the deacon’s office referred to in Phi 1:1 , where Paul writes to the bishops and deacons, and whose qualifications are set forth in 1Ti 3:8-13 .
The philosophic ground on which this institution rests is the division of labor. An Old Testament parallel is Jethro’s suggestion to Moses to appoint judges to judge the small matters, and let him (Moses) judge only of matters God-ward. In Christ’s time, Judas exercised the deacon’s office. That college of apostles was a church in embryo, and Judas, one of the twelve, carried the bag, with the result that he extracted from it its contents. “He was a thief,” John says. We may well ask another question: Is there a failure when the preacher exercises the deacon function, and was that the reason for now putting this temporal matter into the bands of laymen?
A preacher can dip a brush In lampblack and swab out all the white in his reputation, if he goes wrong on the use of church funds.
I knew a preacher who wanted all the time to be deacon as well as pastor; he kept all the funds, and there was a great row at the final examination of his financial accounts.
The Methodists and the Romanists both hold that a deacon is an order of the clergy. It cannot be that it was intended to institute a new order in the ministry, for the reason assigned: “We cannot leave the word of God and serve tables; therefore, look ye out brethren from among you, suitable men, to attend to this, and we will give ourselves to the ministry of the word and to prayer.” That makes it perfectly plain that they were not intending to create a new order of preachers, but secular officers to attend to the temporalities of the church.
I heard a sermon by a great Mississippi Baptist preacher, S. S. Lattimore, father of J. C. Lattimore, of Waco, and 0. S. Lattimore, of Fort Worth. The subject was, “We Cannot Leave the Word of God to Serve Tables,” and the position he took was that the deacon is elected to serve tables: (1) The tables of the poor. (2) The table of the Lord’s Supper. (3) The table of the pastor. I thought it a very ingenious division of the table question.
If, then, it was not intended to create a new order in the ministry, what about the preaching of two of these deacons Stephen and Philip? The explanation is that deacons sometimes become preachers. Two of these seven did. We see such things happen now, but they were not elected to the office of preacher in this case (Act 6:1-6 ).
The present classifications in the ministry are: (1) pastors, meaning shepherds; bishops, meaning overseers of the work, which refers to the same office; pastors or bishops are those that have charge of the church; (2) evangelists, or kingdom preachers; (3) missionaries. A missionary may not necessarily be an evangelist. Those can hardly be called different orders in the ministry that is, one is not higher than the other; it is not a graded thing, but it is a classification.
Some people are concerned to know whether a deacon should be a married man and a father. I will say that is better, but I would not consider it absolutely necessary. We certainly cannot infer it from the passage that is usually quoted: “Likewise their wives . . . grave.” The word does not mean “wives,” i.e., the wives of deacons, but it means “deaconesses.” It is better that these men be men of rich religious character and experience, and possessing the confidence of the denomination, as they are going to handle public funds.
The result of the solution of this problem which confronted the church is found in Act 6:7 : “The word of God increased, and multitudes were converted.” There are certain essential elements of the rite or ceremony of ordination indicated here: (1) election by the church; (2) prayer; (3) laying on of hands. Those three things belong to the rite, or the ceremony, or ordination.
These remarks have been preliminary. We now advance in the discussion. A new man came to the front at this time, and his character and work rendered him prominent, not only then, but in all ages since. That man was Stephen, and the character of his work was as follows. The record states (1) that he was full of the Holy Spirit; (2) that he was full of faith; (3) that he wrought miracles and wonders. When it says that he was full of faith, it means that he had a clearer and stronger faith than any other man then living on the earth. No one of the apostles had such clear recognition of the meaning of the kingdom of God and of the church and of the work of the church as this man Stephen. He is the colossal figure in the history of the early church. He presented a new matter to the people which it took the apostles a long time to see.
In Act 6:9 we find a synagogue and some other terms of the verse that need explanation. This was a Jewish synagogue, not for resident Jews, but for Jews of the dispersion, who stayed for a long time in Jerusalem, and as they did not understand the Hebrew language, the ordinary Jewish synagogue in Jerusalem did not benefit them much, so it is called (1) the synagogue of the “Libertines” (Freedmen); (2) “Cyreneans and Alexandrians” Jews from northern Africa, where they had been settled by one of the Ptolemies; (3) “Cilicia and Asia,” the home of Saul; a great many Cilician Jews were in that synagogue. It is implied in their making an issue with Stephen that Stephen himself, being a Grecian, being one of the dispersed Jews, and better able to speak to that class than to the Hebrews, was pushing, particularly among these dispersed Jews, the grand thoughts concerning the kingdom of God that he bore in his own mind. He was very aggressive; he carried the war into the enemy’s territory. Saul of Tarsus was probably the rabbi of this synagogue. He was educated first at home, then he was graduated in their theological school, of which Gamaliel was president, and became a rabbi, and was of this particular synagogue.
The method of resistance to the gospel now adopted by this synagogue, which was entirely new, was to debate the question. There had been no debate heretofore. The Sadducees did not try to debate with them. This young man, Saul, was a trained thinker, speaker and logician, and he did not propose to let this thing go without “tackling” it in debate. So there was a challenge for debate. Stephen was making certain points, and he was making them among these Grecian people. Still young and ambitious, he had his fire; he believed confidently in his ability to beat any man in -the world. They put it up to him to debate the question. And this is the new method of resistance. The two opposing were the rabbi of this synagogue, and Stephen, who was pushing war over into that synagogue. I would like to have heard the discussion. I am sure it was a fight of the giants.
The issue now is not the resurrection of the dead, but on the whole of the old dispensation having served its purpose; it is vanishing and a new dispensation takes its place. Many of the things in the old dispensation were nailed to the cross of Christ. Their great Temple is now an empty house; its veil is rent in twain from top to bottom; a new temple has been anointed, according to the prophet Daniel, in Daniel 9 the anointing of the most holy place the Holy Spirit coming down and filling the house that Jesus built, leaving the other house vacant. Everything in connection with that system that is local and transitory has vanished away. In other words, Stephen was making right there in that debate just exactly the argument that is made in the letter to the Hebrews that in the new dispensation is a greater than Moses, a greater than the angels, a greater than Joshua, a greater than Aaron. That a greater sacrifice than the bullocks, sheep, and goats, offered on Jewish altars, had been offered. There is then the new temple, the new Sabbath also, everything new now; just what the letter to the Hebrews discusses. This is the issue that Stephen made that this Jesus is the one pointed out by Moses and by the prophets as the true Messiah. That is the forward step taken by Stephen.
The result of the debate is given in Act 6:10 : “And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spake.” They could not resist the power of his eloquence, and Saul went down in the fight. A deaf man was once asked why he attended a big debate, since he could not hear. He said he could always tell which side got whipped. “Why?” he was asked. “Because the one that gets whipped gets mad.” So Saul, failing in this new method of resistance by discussion, revived an old one, an account of which we find in Act 6:11-14 . They took up that old “rusty sword of persecution” that the Sadducees had tried. They took this thing into the courts, and brought the power of the council to bear on it, and decided this matter dogmatically.
When they arrested Stephen and tried him before the Sanhedrin there were three charges, and that shows what he had been preaching:
(1) Their witnesses testified that this man Stephen had spoken blasphemous words about their Temple. I have no doubt that Stephen said it was an empty house that had served its day that it was only waiting a short time until it would be blotted out from the earth, and one stone would not be left upon another that it was never to be erected again, never to have the altar of sacrifices again. That is the first charge, and we see how plausible they made it.
(2) That he spoke against the law. I have no doubt that they made plausible proof on that, and yet it was false. He did not speak against the law, but just as Christ said: “I have not come to destroy, but to fulfil it” that the law in all of its types and shadows and ritual had been completed, filled full, and there was no more use for it; that there was a new law, calling for a different Sacrifice, calling for a different Priest.
(3) That he preached that so far as the customs taught by Moses were typical and ritualistic, and pertaining to a past dispensation, they would be changed. I have no’ doubt that he stood there and preached that the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles was broken down and ground to powder. And he had more faith in that than any other man of his time. His appearance and bearing before the Sanhedrin were marvelous. He did not look like a guilty man; he did not look scared. When they looked steadfastly at him they saw a face illumined a face like the face of an angel. The Lord God was the light of his countenance. The light and glory of God was in his eye. He stood there as a king among men. He did not come in like a whipped cur, begging pardon for existence or appealing for pity.
Let us analyze his defense, and especially make clear his charge against them. The defense corresponds to the charge in its three parts Act 6:13-14 . It shows that the Jews misunderstood their own scriptures, which distinctly showed the transitory nature of the old dispensation. He submits his proof: (a) That Moses foretold the coming of a Prophet like unto himself, whose teaching should be final, (b) The prophets foretold the same thing, (c) The tabernacle of Moses was temporary, and succeeded by the Temple, (d) That God had left the old Temple, since he dwelleth in a temple not made with hands. Stephen was preaching a temple not made with hands the church every stone in this new temple being a living stone, or a converted man or woman, (e) That all through the probations of their history they had rejected the definitely appointed leaders. They had rejected Moses; they had rejected God; they had rejected the prophets; they had rejected the Lord himself, when he came in fulfilment of the prophecy of Moses; and now, to cap the climax, they were rejecting the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent from heaven; they were resisting the anointed church which that Spirit accredited. The effect of the defense and the charge on that Sanhedrin was terrific: “They gnashed on him with their teeth.” They were “cut to the heart.” The word of God was a sword in the hands of Stephen. It was living and powerful, and dividing the joints, reaching the marrow and laying bare the soul itself in its nakedness. His face was shining. One of the great painters, Rembrandt, obtained his special style by putting a halo around the face. The photographers adopt that style now, in which the face is flooded with light, and this is exhibited in the picture. We read that the face of Stephen was illumined, and looking up, far above earthly courts, he sees the heavens opened, and the heavenly court. He sees the supreme court of the universe, the glory of God, and Jesus, who is represented as seated on the right hand of God. He has leaped up to his feet. Stephen said, “I see Jesus, standing at the right hand of the majesty on high.”
That vision was according to a prophecy of our Lord. When Christ had been put on oath, about three and a half years before this time, by this same Sanhedrin, having the same officers, he said (testifying under oath that he was the Messiah), “Hereafter ye shall see me at the right hand of God.” They counted that blasphemy when Christ said it. Now Stephen, remembering the words of the Lord says, “I see him. He said he would appear at the right hand of God. I see him there.” His appearance was his demonstration that he was the Messiah. According to what promise of the Lord? Jesus said, “Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself.” When the time of a Christian’s death approaches, there is a coming of the Lord. Jesus meets him at the depot of death, and receives him into the everlasting tabernacles. Stephen, the brittle thread of his life about to be snapped in twain, and his soul to be evicted by violence from his crumbling body, says, “I see him; he is standing; he said he would come, and he has come.” What was the reason of the effect on that council? It is that this vision which this man evidently saw was a plea established upon what Christ had said, and, therefore, they were affected instead of this man being affected, and though affected, yet not in love with the truth brought to light. They hated it. The greater its light the more they squirmed; the greater the light, the more they writhed in it. Just like a worm exposed to the light, they could not stand the effect of the light. So they brought in a verdict on the charge of blasphemy, and he was executed as indicated by the penalty, which was stoning. Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin and voted in rendering this verdict, the proof of which is found in Act 8:1 ; Act 26:10 : “Saul was consenting unto his death . . . when they were put to death, I gave my vote against them.” But Stephen made a twofold prayer, which sustains a relation to the words and deeds of our Lord. His first prayer was, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” looking into the face of Jesus, just as we look into any man’s face. Jesus was there, and as the tenement of clay was about to crumble, and the soul was about to be evicted, Stephen said, “Lord, receive my spirit.” What word of Christ does he recollect? “It is finished. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” The other part of his prayer was, “Lord Jesus, lay not this sin to their charge,” praying for his murderers.. Jesus made intercession for the transgressors: “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.” So Stephen was talking to the Lord, that he lay not this sin to their charge. Augustine said of this prayer in one of his great homilies:
Si Stephanus non sic orasset, Eccleaia Paulum non haberet.
If Stephen had not so prayed, The Church had not had Paul.
I sometimes think of that prayer and that fiery disputant who was mad because he had been defeated in the debate, and who is now a persecutor, a witness and judge, and of Stephen, looking in the face of the Saviour, and saying, “Lord, lay not this sin to Saul’s charge,” and then I track that prayer until I see it answered.
There is special significance in the fact that the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of Saul. He was the chief persecutor, and as the law required that the witnesses should lay aside their outer cloaks, and cast the first stone, so when they disrobed themselves of their outer cloak in order to stone Stephen, they brought their clothes and put them at the feet of this young man named Saul, showing that everything was being done under his direction and leadership.
The persecution now commenced is unlike the Sadducean persecution. It is the most sweeping transaction that the Jews ever conducted in their history. It includes that most abominable of all exercises inaugurated inquisitorial visitation into the private home, and the dragging of men and women violently before the courts, and then when they were put to death, Saul gave his vote against them. It reached every man, every woman, and every child in the church, except the apostles, and expatriated those whom it did not select. The fire was so hot that they fled in every direction.
A distinct prophetic period here ends according to Daniel, who said that when the Messiah comes, he will confirm the covenant with many for one week; that in the middle of the week he should be cut off that is, he would confirm it for one week of three-and-a-half years during his public ministry, and then he would confirm it three-and-a-half years after his death. This persecution of Saul is the end of the second three and-a-half years. Hereafter the salvation of the Jews is an exception; hence there will be no ingathering of the Jews until they shall say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” It means that the God of salvation is now shut out from their faces. But this persecution affects the church in a broader understanding of its commission. Its members see now, as I will show in a subsequent discussion, that Samaria must have the Word of God; that the Gentiles must also have it, as was seen in the forward step of this fiery Stephen, such as they had never had before, and that no apostle had up to that time. This gives Stephen a prominent place in the transition. He is a keystone figure in the transaction. He is the colossal leader that gets the church out of its rut of preaching to Jews only, and puts the wheels of the carriage of salvation on a graded road and track that will lead to every nation, tribe, tongue, and kindred in the world. Likewise Saul sustained a vital relation to this great transition. He was the man who by that debate and that persecution, just as effectually, though unconsciously, helped to spread the gospel to the whole world, as he did later when he preached it himself. Thus again the wrath of man was made to praise God.
But what of the execution of Stephen on the verdict of a Jewish court, on a Jewish charge, with a Jewish penalty, as compared with what the same Sanhedrin had said three years before to Pilate (Joh 18:31 ) of the unlawfulness of their putting a man to death? Pilate said, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law,” and they said, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” Here they were putting a man to death, and they were trying him according to their law, and Paul says, “We tried and put to death.” Here is the explanation: This was the year A.D. 37, in which Tiberius, the Emperor, died, and the new emperor had not come in, and as procurators were appointees of emperors, there were no procurators. At this juncture there was no procurator in Palestine, no Pontius Pilate, and, therefore, they took matters into their own hands at the risk of a subsequent explanation of it when the emperor should come to it. Just here the Pharisee persecution ended by the conversion of Saul, and then the church had rest (Act 9:31 ).
Act 7:2-3 ; Act 7:22 ; Act 7:25 ; Act 7:53 shed much light on the Old Testament. Act 7:2-3 says, “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy land, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee.” The Revised Version of Genesis indicates that God’s call to Abraham took place after he got into the promised land. Stephen here says that that call came before he got to Haran. The King James Version rightly translates Gen 12:1 and the Revised Version “slips up” on it. The Authorized Version says, “God had said to Abraham.” Act 7:22 says, “And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; and he was mighty in his words and works.” That throws light on the education of Moses, and also on the public official deeds of Moses. Act 7:25 says, “And he [Moses] supposed that his brethren understood that God by his hand was giving them deliverance.” That throws light on the interference of Moses in Egypt, and shows that God had told him that he was to deliver Israel. He had a revelation which we do not learn from Exodus. He supposed his people understood that they were to be delivered by him. Act 7:53 says, “Ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not.” That is light on the Sinaitic covenant that it came through the ministry of angels, later reaffirmed in the New Testament, accepted by Jews, and especially claimed by Josephus. Just here is needed an explanation of Act 7:16 , which says, “And they were laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for the price in silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem.” The only explanation of that is that there is an error in the text of the copyist. Abraham did not buy that land. If we go back far enough we will see that it was Jacob’s and not Abraham’s; and that Jacob claimed that he got it by bow and spear. His sons, Levi and Simeon, got it by as rascally a trick as was ever perpetrated.
QUESTIONS 1. What are the leading topics so far discussed in Acts?
2. What are the themes of this chapter?
3. What is the distinction between Grecians and Hebrews in Act 6:1 ?
4. What problem now confronted the church, and what its solution?
5. Connect and explain the following scriptures: Act 2:45 ; Act 4:35 ; Act 6:1 ; Act 11:29 ; Act 12:25 ; 1Co 16:1-14 ; 1Cor. 8-9; and 1Ti 5:3-11 .
6. What lesson of church polity here taught?
7. Was this the institution of the deacon’s office referred to in Phi 1:1 , and whose qualifications are set forth in 1Ti 3:8-13 ? What the proof?
8. On what philosophic ground does this institution rest, what Old Testament parallel, who in Christ’s lifetime exercised the deacon’s office, and what the result?
9. Was the deaconship, now established, an order in the ministry as taught by some denominations? If not, how explain the preaching of Stephen and Philip, who were deacons?
10. What are the present classifications in the ministry? Give examples.
11. Must a deacon be a married man and a father?
12. What was the result of the solution of this problem, which confronted the church?
13. What are the essential elements of the rite of ordination?
14. What new man now comes to the front, and what character of his work rendered him prominent, not only then, but in all ages since?
15. Explain the synagogue of Act 6:9 and the other terms of the verse, and what is implied in their making an issue with Stephen?
16. Who was probably the rabbi of this synagogue?
17. What entirely new method of resistance to the gospel now adopted by this synagogue, and who were the opposing leaders?
18. What is the issue this time as contrasted with the Sadducean issue, and what great forward step had been taken by Stephen which created this issue?
19. What is the result of the debate?
20. Failing in this new method of resistance by discussion, what old one did they revive?
21. What charges did they bring against Stephen, and what the plausibleness of each?
22. What his appearance and bearing before the Sanhedrin?
23. Analyze his defense; especially make clear his charge against them.
24. What is the effect of the defense and the charge, on the council?
25. What is the vision of Stephen, what its relation to a prophecy of our Lord, also to a promise of our Lord, and what the reason of its effect on the council?
26. Did they render a verdict, and on what charge was he executed, as indicated by the penalty?
27. Was Saul a member of the Sanhedrin, did he vote in casting this verdict, and what the proof?
28. What was Stephen’s twofold prayer, and what its relation to the words and deeds of our Lord?
29. What said Augustine of this prayer in one of his great homilies?
30. What is the significance of the witnesses laying their clothes at the feet of Saul?
31. What is the sweeping persecution that followed, what its signification, what its character, what its extent, and what its result?
32. What distinct prophetic period ends here, and what its meaning to the Jewish nation?
33. How did this persecution affect the church with reference to the commission?
34. What may be said of Stephen’s relation to this great transition?
35. What was Paul’s relation to it?
36. Compare the execution of Stephen on the verdict of a Jewish court, on a Jewish charge, with a Jewish penalty, with what the same Sanhedrin had said three years before to Pilate, and explain.
37. How did the Pharisee persecution end?
38. What light on the Old Testament from Act 7:2-3 ?
39. What light is also from Act 7:22 ?
40. What is from Act 7:25 ?
41. What is from Act 7:53 ?
42. Harmonize Act 7:14 with Gen 46:26 f; Exo 1:5 ; Deu 10:22 .
43. Explain Act 7:16 .
44. Explain the word “church” in Act 7:38 .
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
Ver. 1. Are these things so? ] A Fire hearing Stephen should have, but his death was beforehand resolved on.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1 .] On the H. P.’s question, see Chrys. just quoted. It is parallel with Mat 26:62 , but singularly distinguished from that question by its mildness: see above.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 7:1 . The question of the high priest breaks in upon the silence (Holtzmann). St. Chrysostom, Hom. , xv., thought that the mildness of the inquiry showed that the assembly was overawed by St. Stephen’s presence, but the question was probably a usual interrogation on such occasions (Felten, Farrar). On see Act 1:6 , and Blass, Grammatik , p. 254.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Acts Chapter 7
The remarkable testimony of Stephen now comes before us. It was fitting that the devoted Hellenist, rather than any of the twelve, should break fresh ground and pave the way for the wider outgoing of the truth, just after the mention of so striking a witness to its attractive power from the bosom of Judaism in the faith of a crowd of priests (Act 6:7 ).
Stephen was accused of disparaging what was most sacred in Hebrew eyes – the sanctuary and the law. He was charged with attributing to the Nazarene a purpose of destroying ‘that place’, and of changing the customs delivered to them by Moses. What can be of deeper interest and instruction than his way of meeting so malignant a perversion of his meaning? Grace is never the enemy of law, though incomparably higher, it rather establishes law. The prophetic word did not conceal that of the stately buildings of the temple not one stone should be left on another; but was Jesus a destroyer, because He was a prophet and far more than a prophet? Under His reign the law shall go forth out of Zion, and even in humiliation He came not to destroy but to fulfil it. But unbelief is deaf and blind, and is apt to impute its own evils to those who love the truth. Certainly Stephen said nothing but what the prophets and Moses had declared should come.
‘And the high priest said, Are these things so? And he said, Brethren [lit. Men brethren] and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said unto him, Go out of thy land and out of thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee’ (vers. 1-3).
‘The God of glory’ is no mere Hebraism for ‘glorious God’, but directs the heart from the beginning to One altogether above the world not only in Himself but in His purposes, whatever His ways meanwhile on the earth. ‘Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood [river] in old time, even Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods’ (Jos 24:2 ). It was in sovereign grace that God thus appeared. Even the line of Shem, the father and kindred of Abraham, were idolaters. Grace gives, not finds, what is good. Not only did the God of glory appear: it was to Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia and thus when he was at the farthest point of his distance from ‘the land’, as well as in idolatrous associations. How little the Jews understood the God of glory or His servant Moses! Stephen, full of grace and power, did. Nothing was more foreign to him than ‘speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.’
Even Abraham, blessed as he was, moved slowly in the path of faith at first. He did not quit Mesopotamia to dwell in Canaan all at once. Before this he dwelt in Haran. He got out of his land, but not so quickly ‘out of his kindred’, so that there was a remarkable delay in coming into the land which God was to show him. ‘Then came he out of [the] land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran; and thence, after his father died, He removed him into this land in which ye now dwell’ (ver. 4).
It is rather a daring comment to say (Alford, Greek Testament in loco) that ‘the Jewish chronology which Stephen follows was at fault here, owing to the circumstance of Terah’s death being mentioned, Gen 11:32 , before the command to Abram to leave Haran, it not having been observed that the mention is anticipatory. And this is confirmed by Philo having fallen into the same mistake . . .’ The truth is that the favourite Jewish hypothesis (Aben Ezra, Rashi) is that Terah did not die till sixty years after Abraham had left Haran. And in all probability the Samaritan Pentateuch has changed 205 into 145 (Gen 11:32 ), in order to meet the supposed difficulty. The source of the error among ancients or moderns is the assumption that Abraham was Terah’s eldest son, for which there is no more ground in the order of the names than in the case of Noah’s sons, where we know that not Shem but Japheth was the eldest. But, for an adequate divine reason, not the elder but the younger is repeatedly named first. To Terah at 70 years Haran was born, Abraham at 130, who therefore could be married to Haran’s daughter, Sarai or Iscah, ten years younger than himself. See Ussher’s Works, viii. 21-23; Clinton’s Fasti Hellen. i. 289 et seqq.
One may not agree with Bengel’s suggestion which Alford quotes, but an upright help towards understanding the word which is held fast as perfect is to be respected: ‘truly lamentable’ is the pandering to the enemy on the plea of the spirit, not the letter, of God’s word. That Terah who had Haran at 70 might have begotten Abraham at 130 is simple enough, dying at 205; that Abraham should at 99 regard it as beyond nature to have by Sarah a son is no less simple. Hagar had borne him a son at 86; and the natural interpretation of Gen 25:1-6 is that after Sarah’s death Abraham had by Keturah, his wife or concubine, six sons sent away from Isaac while he lived, that Isaac only should be his heir without dispute. There is no handling of the word of God so deceitful as the unbelief which treats it as if it were not His, or as if He could lie.
Terah, as long as he lived, was a dead weight on Abraham’s obedience. As we are told, ‘Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan’ (Gen 11:31 ). But the land, in these circumstances, they never reached. God told Abraham to quit his kindred as well as his country, and till this was done, he failed to reach Canaan.1 It would have scarcely been proper for Abram as the son to take Terah his father. So ‘Terah took Abram . . .’ This, however, was not at all according to the call of God to Abram. Hence, we read, ‘they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.’ But when Terah died, ‘Abram departed as the Lord had spoken unto him’ (Gen. xii. 4). Then the language is pointedly different: – ‘And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan, and into the land of Canaan they came’ (Gen 12:5 ). There was no failure now that his faith was not hampered by the encumbrance of nature which almost necessarily took the upper hand; therefore the movement had lacked the power of God to give it effect. That gone, the blessing immediately followed.
1 Philo (Ed. Richter, iv. 20) is all wrong in denying that God appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia, confining the vision to Gen 12:7 just like the Jews who assailed Stephen. Dean Alford’s remarks are worse than ‘inaccurate’.
There is a question in verse 4 whether the subject be Abram or God understood. If verse 43 points to the latter, the construction of 1Ch 8:6 (in the LXX.) favours the former: so that some may and do abide with the Authorized Version, instead of following the Revisers, and the Vulgate, Syrr., Ar., Cop., if not Aeth. The connection with verse 5 would lead one to prefer God: ‘And He gave him none inheritance in it, not so much as a foot’s tread, and promised to give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when he had no child.’
It is wholly incorrect to say that God did afterwards give him a possession in Canaan, namely, the piece of land which he purchased of Ephron as a burial-place, Gen 23:17 ; for the gift of God is absolute and future, and that it is so is confirmed, not weakened or trenched on, by the purchase of a burial-place from the Hittite. For who that possessed this land or any other would think of buying his own possession? There he lays his dead in land so evidently not his own that he has to buy it for the purpose, the pledge to faith that he will have it another day. So far from occasion to wrest our text here or anywhere in order to produce accordance with the history, the language is as plain and perfect as possible. The fact is stated to show how truly the patriarch was a pilgrim in the very land whose present possession had, to say the least, such exaggerated moment in the eyes of his seed, because they walked not in the faith of their father. God will surely give ‘this land’ to Abram’s seed. They will buy it of no stranger in that day. No intermediate confusion can touch His promise. ‘By faith he (Abraham) sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise’ (Heb 11:9 ).
Abram and his seed will have the promise in the day when glory is to dwell in that land (Psa 85 .), a truth which Gentile theology makes even believers forget. Indeed all the earth shall then be filled with the glory of Jehovah, but pre-eminently is the glory to rest on Zion, a defence on all, when God shall have accomplished the cleansing of Jerusalem: not by the gospel simply as now, but by the spirit of judgment and of burning. Then shall the children of Abraham, not by nature only but by grace also, enter on the promised inheritance, he himself being in resurrection-glory, when Jesus is revealed from heaven and there come the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, which have been since time began.
There is no ground for regarding ‘not’, as ‘not yet’ nor ‘gave’ and ‘promised’ as pluperfect in sense, nor ‘and’ as ‘yet’, with learned men who did not understand nor believe the scripture before them.
Further, Stephen draws attention to the fact that ‘God thus spoke, that his seed [Abraham’s] should be a sojourner in a land not theirs, and that they should enslave and ill-treat them, four hundred years. And the nation, to whom they shall be in slavery, will I judge, said God; and after these things shall they come out and serve Me in this place’ (vers. 6, 7). It is a free citation of Gen 15:13 , Gen 15:14 , with a few words, more or less from Exo 3:12 , instead of the closing phrase. The God of glory thought of His people in Egypt and in the wilderness, before the holy place or even the law, and will never give Israel up till He has made good His promise, guaranteed when Abraham had no child. God called Abraham alone, and blessed and increased him. How wrong then they all were in making so much of themselves, and of their privileges, to the slight of His grace and of Himself, the God of glory, Who appeared to Abraham alone when there was absolutely nothing to boast, nothing but sin and shame in man, and Israel as yet unborn! For as with the father, so with his seed. As he went about a stranger in Palestine, so they were first seen in bondage in an alien land; and this for no brief moment – for in round numbers 400 (strictly 405) years intervened from the birth of the child of promise till God judged the nation that had them in slavery.1 When his descendants did come out, it was not even into the land, but into the desert, where they wandered forty years. He had indeed delivered them to His own glory, but His dealings were not according to their thoughts and prejudices. Were they the people to claim indefeasible and even exclusive rights? To do so, they must disbelieve their own history, yea, God’s word.
1 It was as exactly as possible 400 years from the dismissal of the Egyptian bondwoman and her child Ishmael, the beginning of that ‘persecution of the line of promise which culminated in Egypt and closed in the Exodus of Israel when divine judgments had broken the power and pride of their oppressors.
At first sight it may appear to some singular that Stephen should introduce circumcision. But he, in fact, simply follows the divine record, so that there is not only instruction conveyed, but it is increased by paying heed to the order impressed on the facts, and so on the history, by the wisdom of God.
‘And he gave him a covenant of circumcision, and thus he begat Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac, Jacob; and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs’ (ver. 8).
Thus does Stephen draw marked attention to the covenant of circumcision given of God to Abraham, instead of slighting the institution incorporated in the law. It was thus Isaac was begotten, and those who followed; all submitting to a rite which indicated the corruption of the flesh, and put death on it as the only deliverance from it. But the promise was already long before the law; and the father of the faithful had enjoyed the election and call of God anterior even to circumcision. The truth is a whole, and only suffers from the misuse of one part to enfeeble or destroy another. The Spirit, using the word in view of Christ’s glory, puts all in its place, as He alone can. Hence the speaker, being a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, saw and presented things according to God, whereas the unbelieving Jews understood in no wise the true bearing of their own institutions, misusing them for self-righteousness and pride, and hence blindly rejecting the Light of God to Whom all pointed.
Alas! it is an old story. Their fathers were not really better than they; and God has not told us of their doings in vain, if we have but an ear to hear. For how does Stephen sum up the history of that early twelve? ‘And the patriarchs through jealousy sold Joseph into Egypt: and God was with him, and delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house’ (vers. 9, 10). A beloved son, or a God-fearing slave, a guiltless prisoner or a wise vicegerent, Joseph had God with him everywhere and in all circumstances. Yet who of the twelve was so tried of his brethren? who so plotted against as he? Who seemed to fare worse in spite – yea because – of his unsullied purity? Nevertheless, even in prison, ‘Jehovah was with him, and that which he did Jehovah made it to prosper.’
Was there no voice, from Joseph and his brethren, to the Jews who surrounded Stephen? ‘Joseph brought unto their father their evil report. . . . And when his brethren saw that his father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him…. And his brethren said, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams and for his words…. And when they saw him afar off, even before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him. . . . And they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver; and they brought Joseph into Egypt’ (Gen 37:2-28 ). If so the fathers dealt with the type, who that believes could wonder that they should deal worse with the great Antitype? For it was what was of Christ in Joseph, what the Spirit wrought in and by him, which irritated the fathers of the nation against him. Was it so wonderful, then, that ‘this generation’ had rejected a greater than Joseph; Who being come convicted them of enmity against God, drawn out by hatred of divine goodness in His own person, ways, and words? Let them not forget that the rejected of his brethren was exalted to the right hand of power for the blessing of others, and even (specially at the end) of his brethren, to whom he was only thus made known after his long separation from them. Thus did he prefigure Christ in His sufferings, as well as in the glories that should follow them.
‘Now there came a famine over all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction; and our fathers found no sustenance. But Jacob, having heard that there was corn in Egypt, sent forth our fathers first and at the second [time] Joseph was made known to his brethren, and his [or, Joseph’s] race became manifest unto Pharaoh. And Joseph sent and called to him Jacob his father, and all his kindred, seventy-five souls’ (vers. 11-14).
It was a pathway of righteous suffering which led to glory; and when exalted, Joseph administers in the wisdom of God what the same wisdom exalted him to provide in days of plenty for those of dearth. Under the mighty hand of God, the dearth pressed not only over all Egypt but over Canaan, where the heads of Israel tasted of that cruel affliction, for they found no sustenance, and in divine providence sought corn in Egypt. This, ‘at the second time’, gave occasion for their great discovery, not without self-judgment when Joseph was made known to his brethren, and the line of promise became no longer a secret to Pharaoh. And the fathers, with Israel their father, went down into Egypt, where they in lengthened and retributive sorrow were to pay the penalty for their heartless wrong to their brother, who was exalted of God where Jew and Gentile had both put him to shame, which he repaid in nothing but grace to all, but especially to Israel.
The bearing of all this on Christ is unmistakable; but Stephen does not apply – he only states – facts, so much the more striking because they were familiar, and now set in a light which shone on Messiah as well as the Jews, that the people might thereby know God and themselves. How little they knew anything as they ought was plain from this, that they had hitherto never thought of seeing in Joseph the Christ, nor in the guilty fathers themselves, the still guiltier murderers of the Lord of glory. Their ignorant boast was their shame. And He that was sold no less than Joseph, and lifted up on high from a worse pit and a deeper dungeon, was waiting to bless them, as they themselves were to taste the bitter fruits of their sin in a dispersion worse than a captivity, whatever the mercy that awaits them in the latter end, when they bow repentant before Him in glory.
It will be noticed that Stephen speaks of seventy-five souls, where the Hebrew has seventy; he cites here, as elsewhere, the Septuagint. Calvin (in loco) considers that this discrepancy came not from the Greek translators themselves, but crept in through the fault of copyists, and that Stephen did not say so; but that seventy-five was foisted in here to make the speech agree with the Greek version of Gen 46:27 . But this appears to be an unreasonable way of accounting for what is simple enough, and that the apostle’s caution against endless genealogies (1Ti 1:4 ) has nothing to do with the matter. The fact is, that both the original and the Greek version might both be true, the latter reckoning in five sons of Manasseh and Ephraim born in Egypt (1Ch 7:14-27 ), according to a latitude of various forms, by no means uncommon in such lists.
There is more difficulty in explaining the next verse but one. ‘And Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers; and they were carried over unto Shechem and laid in the tomb which Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor in [son, or father of1] Shechem’ (vers. 15, 16).
1 The chief various reading in this verse is a question between and : the former supported by p.m. BC, several cursives and ancient versions (and with before corr. AE and three cursives, et al.), the latter (which is the commonly received text) by inferior authorities. The whole phrase is omitted by the Pesh. Syr. and Erp. Arabic.
The late Dean of Canterbury had no hesitation in pronouncing him who spoke, full of the Holy Ghost, as guilty of ‘at least two demonstrable historical inaccuracies’, which, he is pleased to assure his readers, do not affect the inspiration or the veracity of the writer! On the other hand Bengel, following Fl. Illyricus, et al., seeks to clear the passage up by the supposition that a double purchase and a double burial were intended with intentional omissions on either side. He therefore maintains the integrity of the reading ‘Abraham’, and declares the conjectural ‘Jacob’ unnecessary, compendious brevity, when the particulars were all known, accounting for a method which to us seems surprising. The facts are that Abraham bought a burial-place of Ephron the Hittite at Machpelah or Hebron, where the three patriarchs were buried as well as Sarah, and that Jacob bought a field of the sons of Hamor in Shechem, where Joseph was buried. Where the rest of Jacob’s sons were laid does not appear in the Old Testament: Josephus says in Hebron; the Rabbis, in Shechem, as Jerome also reports. Moderns argue for some here and some there; and one at least maintains a transfer from Shechem to Hebron.
I prefer to leave the passage; but in the circumstances the least worthy hypothesis is that this blessed and mighty witness of Christ fell into a confusion of Hebron with Shechem, and of Abraham with Jacob, beneath an ordinary Sunday-scholar. Is it not a safer conclusion that we may be ignorant of facts which, better known, would dispel this mist, or of some peculiarity in the mode of reference, as in Mat 27:9 , Mar 1:2 , to which Westerns are not used, but which is understood without cavil among Jews? One is disposed (when surveying from first to last a speech of surpassing scope, and power of insight into principles of Jewish history) to doubt that the speaker was ignorant of circumstances lying on the surface of the earliest book of Scripture, and familiarly known to every Jew; or that the inspired writer of the Book did not see the discrepancy which must strike the most careless reader. And one may question whether it would not be better, these things being so, to amend our manners instead of assuming to amend the text.
‘But as the time of the promise was drawing nigh which God vouchsafed2 to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt till there arose another king over Egypt who knew not Joseph. He dealt craftily with our race and evil-entreated our fathers that they should expose their babes to the end they might not be preserved alive’ (vers. 17-19).
2 There can be scarce a question that is the right reading, as in ABC, et al., with most of the old versions; and not the vulgar reading w]mosen ‘swore’, as in HP, most cursives, the Pesh. Syr., Cop., et al.
It is always thus. There is ever war between God and the enemy, and nowhere does it rage so hotly as where His people are concerned, and when a distinct manifestation of divine mercy is imminent. God’s approaching favour to Israel drew out the enmity of Satan, who stirred up a suited instrument for his malice in the prince of the world of that day, ‘another king who knew not Joseph’. The verses are a pithy summary of Exo 1:7-20 , which gives the details of Pharaoh’s wily, aggressive, and unscrupulously cruel efforts to depress, yet just as signally to be defeated of God, for, say or do what he might, ‘the people multiplied and waxed very mighty’. The edict to destroy the males failed, not only through human pity, but through the fear of God, Who honoured those who honoured Him, and brought to naught His adversaries.
But now Moses is dwelt on at great length by Stephen as before Joseph more briefly. Thus he brought before their minds another and most salient personal type of the Messiah, besides the general testimony to the truth for their consciences.
‘At which season Moses was born, and was exceedingly [lit. to God] fair, who was nourished three months in his father’s house; and when he was cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up and nourished him for her own son. And Moses was instructed in all [the] wisdom of [the] Egyptians; and he was mighty in his words and works. But when he was about forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the sons of Israel; and seeing one wronged, he defended [him], and avenged him that was oppressed, smiting the Egyptian. For he thought that his brethren understood that God by his hand was giving them deliverance; but they understood not. And on the day following he appeared to them as they were striving, and compelled them to peace, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren: why do ye wrong one to another? But he that was wronging his neighbour thrust him away, saying, Who established thee ruler and judge over us? Dost thou wish to kill me as thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday? And Moses fled at this saying, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian where he begat two sons’ (vers. 20-29).
The enemy had raised up a suited instrument, another king over Egypt which knew not Joseph. Suffering became the portion of Israel and a deadly stroke was aimed at the promise in the person of their babes. For the commandment of the king was to expose them that they might not be preserved alive. At that critical moment Moses was born, fair unto God, with a glorious career before him, however dark its beginnings. He, too, came under the sentence of death, and, after being nourished three months in his father’s house, was cast out like the rest. But we have the highest authority for affirming that it was ‘by faith’, whatever the natural affection of his parents, that he was hid by them these three months (Heb 11:23 ). ‘They were not afraid of the king’s commandment.’ God interfered for him providentially; and’ the least likely of all in Egypt, Pharaoh’s daughter, took him up and nourished him for her own son. It was manifestly an intervention of God.
But divine providence is no guide for faith, nothing but the word. Providence brought him in, whence faith led him out. ‘By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter choosing rather to be evil-entreated with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; accounting the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked unto the recompense of reward’ (Heb 11:24-26 ).
None can deny that Moses was capable of justly estimating the situation. He was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and works. He looked, however, not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. His eye was on the kingdom of God, he awaited the Messiah, he knew that the purposes of God, as they centre in Christ, had Israel as their inner circle on earth. His affections therefore, were not with the court of Egypt, nor upon the most brilliant vista it could open for a man of his energy. Poor degraded Israel he loved, and loved, not so much because they were his people, but as the people of God, yet reserved for Christ, Whose reproach meanwhile their degradation was.
So when Moses was about forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the sons of Israel. Alas! they were fallen, not in their circumstances only, but in their souls. Faith wrought in but few of them to expect a deliverer or to appreciate such as had faith in God. In such circumstances the worst moral condition is apt to be found. An unfaithful Israelite sinks below an Egyptian; and Moses must learn this, as Joseph had learned it before; as One infinitely greater than Joseph or Moses proved it even before the death of the cross. ‘And seeing one suffer wrong, he defended him and avenged him that was oppressed, smiting the Egyptian; and he supposed that his brethren understood how that God by his hand was giving them salvation, but they understood not.’ They were dark and dead God-ward. The hardness of man they felt. The hope God had given to Israel had almost vanished from their souls. There was certainly no expectation of a deliverance at hand; yet surely they ought to have looked for it. The fourth generation was proceeding, in which, according to the word of Jehovah, they, so long afflicted, were to quit a judged Egypt, and to come into the promised land again (Gen 15:13-16 ).
But God was not in their thoughts, and Moses was misunderstood. Nay, worse than this; ‘And the day following he appeared unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren, why do ye wrong one to another? But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? Wouldest thou kill me as thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday?’ The keenest wound, as the basest blow, comes from God’s people: when man rules therein and not God, Satan works underneath it all and at his worst.
Yet was it all profitable discipline for Moses, who ‘fled at this saying and became a sojourner in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons.’ He must learn of God alone in the wilderness. The wisdom of Egypt must be, as it were, unlearned: God deigns not to honour it for His deliverances. The wisdom that He uses must come down from above. We shall see how God wrought when the due moment arrives. Meanwhile Moses is the rejected of Israel, as Joseph before of his brethren. Only as Joseph shows us exaltation over the Gentiles when separated from his brethren, so Moses gives us, in another direction, the complication from the offended power and anger of the Gentiles.
But it is during this compulsory exile from Israel that Moses has a family given to him. So the virgin’s Son, Emmanuel, speaks in Isa 8:5-18 . There too Israel are unbelieving; there too is a hostile confederacy of the nations; but, ‘Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah has given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel, from Jehovah of hosts which dwelleth in mount Zion.’ Faith waits upon Jehovah that hides His face from the house of Jacob, and it looks for Him. At the worst of times He is for a sanctuary, at the right moment He works out unmistakable deliverance. How solemnly all this bore on the actual circumstances of the Jew! They did not understand that Jesus was their Deliverer. They gradually grew to hate His words, because His words judged them in the secret of their souls, and His parables portended sure destruction for their pride and unbelief. Hence they cast Him out even unto death, but God raised Him up and was now manifesting the children He had given Him, as yet from Israel only, but soon to be from Gentiles also. The hour of Messiah’s rejection is but the occasion for a higher glory and a more intimate relationship with those who meanwhile believe, just as the stranger in the land of Midian becomes the father of two sons which he had not when in Egypt with the sons of Israel around him.
Had Stephen invented these remarkable facts and yet more remarkable foreshadowings? No Jew, however prejudiced, could deny them to be the brief, true, and bright reflection of God’s word in their own hands. The undeniable truth inspired by the Holy Ghost shone solemnly on that which they had done to One attested by God to them by works of power and wonders and signs which God wrought by Him in their midst, as they themselves too well knew. Such is man on the one hand, and such God on the other: so surprising as to provoke the unbelief and ill-will of all who do not bow to His revelation as well as to the bitter conviction of their own evil. To the believer it is the old but ever new lesson of learning the first man and the Second: where this is learnt, the heart seeks and owns it could not be otherwise, man being what he is, as also God what He is for He cannot deny Himself, though man in his blindness constantly denies both himself and God.
But the correction comes when Christ is brought home to the soul by the Holy Ghost in the gospel: one repents, and believes. Such an one reads his own evil in what man did and is: anything of iniquity in a Jew or a Gentile is not overmuch marvellous, he can find a match for Pharaoh or for Israel in his own breast if not in his own life, or in both. But greater grace assuredly than was ever shown by a Joseph or a Moses, he knows in the Son of God Who came down from heaven not to do His own will, but His Who sent Him – in the Son of man Who came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. So does faith turn all things past or future to present account; as a man’s unbelief loses all blessing from every quarter, and will rather destroy his own soul than give honour really to God and His Son.
Thus was Moses an outcast for many long years, not more from the incensed king of Egypt than from his own unworthy brethren, who loved him the less, the more abundantly he loved them, and who were as unmindful of the promised deliverance as unappreciative of him who forfeited all on their account. Israel denied him who was in that day the type of the Holy and the Righteous One. It was no new thing.
‘And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel [of the Lord]1 appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire of [in] a bush. And Moses, on seeing, wondered at the sight; and as he went up to observe, there came a voice of [the] Lord [unto him]2: I [am] the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and3 Isaac, and3 Jacob. And Moses trembled, and durst not observe. And the Lord said to him, Loose the sandal of thy feet, for the place whereon4 thou standest is holy ground. I have surely [lit. seeing I have] seen the ill-treatment of My people which is in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and am come down to take them out for Myself. And now come, I send [or, will send] thee into Egypt. This Moses whom they denied, saying, Who established thee ruler and judge? him hath5 God sent [both] ruler and deliverer, with an angel’s hand that appeared to him in the bush. This [man] led them out, having wrought wonders and signs in the land of6 Egypt and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is the Moses that said to the sons of Israel, A prophet will God7 raise up to you out of your brethren, like me’ (vers. 30-37).
1 DEHP, almost all cursives and many ancient versions.
2 Most authorities but not the best.
3 ‘The God of’ in the Authorized Version and Received Text on ample, but not the highest, authority.
4 ‘Wherein’ is the more common reading.
5 The perfect has best, not most, support.
6 Probably Lachmann’s choice of is right (BC et al.), which may next easily have lapsed into or both being well supported but not the oldest.
7 The Received Text adds, ‘The Lord your’, as in the Authorized Version, and ‘him shall ye hear’, but not so the oldest.
God ordered the trials for Moses as none else would. For him, at the vigorous age of forty years, spent with every natural advantage possible in that day, who would have planned an equal period in the comparative solitude of Midian, without a project or even a known communication with his race, in patient waiting on God? Yet what wiser, if God were acting in wisdom and power by Moses to His own glory?
Then came a most singular but suited manifestation: an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire of a bush. It was no less significant than that vouchsafed to Joshua at a later day (Jos 5:13-15 ). When conquest of Canaan was in question, what more encouraging than a man seen with his sword drawn, captain of Jehovah’s host? When the work was to bring the people through a waste howling wilderness, what more appropriate sign than a bush blazing yet unconsumed, and yet more, ‘the good-will of Him that dwelt in the bush’? Moses himself, ‘separated from his brethren’, could well appreciate its significance, when wonder and fear had yielded to reflection in the light of the divine communications he had received.
‘And as he went up to observe, there came a voice of [the] Lord, I [am] the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And Moses trembled, and durst not observe.’ Before redemption, even a saint trembled when brought into God’s presence. Be it that His voice declares Him the God of promise, of the fathers Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, ‘Moses trembled, and durst not observe.’ Till redemption peace is impossible. ‘And the Lord said to him, Loose the sandal of thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.’ Before the exodus of Israel from Egypt there was a manifestation of divine righteousness in delivering them and judging their oppressors. And holiness is proclaimed inviolable from the outset, not less is it so when Israel are called under Joshua to uncompromising conflict with the Canaanite dwelling in the land. ‘Holiness’, it was sung at a latter day for an epoch not yet fulfilled, ‘becometh Thine house, O Jehovah, for ever’ (Psa 93:5 ). The same prefatory admonition precedes alike the types of redemption accomplished for His people, and of warring in their midst with Satan that they may enjoy their proper privileges. God will be sanctified, whatever His grace in redeeming His own from the house of bondage, or in leading them to victory over the powers which usurp their heritage. Let us not forget it. How often irreverence has crept in, both in learning divine righteousness and in conflict with the enemy! ‘These things ought not so to be.’
But redemption was in His heart; and of this He forthwith speaks to Moses, now weaned from self-confidence as much as from worldly association. ‘I have surely seen the ill-treatment of My people which is in Egypt and have heard their groaning, and am come down to take them out for Myself.’ Who but God would have thus undisguisedly spoken of a poor set of slaves as ‘My people’? Others would have delivered and bedecked them first. It is the same God Who as a father falls on the neck of the returning prodigal in his rags and kisses him, before the honours afterwards lavished upon him. But let it be the foreshadowing or the antitypical reality, it is of the utmost moment to apprehend that redemption is the work of God present in some sort, and delivering, not merely from the enemy, but for Himself. His people’s ill-treatment must be avenged, their groaning be heard and answered with His consolation”; but, better still, He comes down to take them out for Himself.
‘To deliver’ was of course verified also but the literal rendering is much more expressive, and gives not mere relief from the usurper’s hand, but the positive object, and what can surpass it? If it be often overlooked, both in doctrine and in practice, it is of the more consequence to insist on it. Elsewhere may be put forward liberation, of which it is, of course, right in its place to point out the nature and effects; but here it is God taking Israel out for Himself, as said also of Joseph in verse 10, and not infrequently elsewhere in Scripture, though the emphatic force only comes out fully in redemption. For Christ suffered once for sins, Just for unjust, that He might bring us to God. It will be manifest when we ate in glory; it is no less true now to faith while we are here on earth. Nor can any truth bound up with redemption be of deeper moment for the soul. True spiritual experience rests on and springs out of it.
‘And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.’ But how different now the feelings of Moses! When in Egypt, he had gone forward in his own energy, and now, when sent of God, he makes objections and difficulties. How instructive the twofold lesson for us! So it is ever. The man who was not called readily proffered to follow the Lord wheresoever He might go; as ignorant of himself and of the world and of the enemy, as of Christ. The disciple who was called begs leave first to go away and bury his father, but learns from the Lord that there must be no object before Himself. ‘Follow Me’ (Luk 9:57-62 ).
‘This Moses whom they denied, saying, Who established thee ruler and judge? him hath God sent both ruler and deliverer [or, redeemer! with an angel’s hand that appeared to him in the bush.’ The language is framed so as to maintain the parallel between Moses, as before of Joseph, with Jesus the despised and denied Messiah, Whom God is to send from the heavens, not only to bring in generally the predicted times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, but to redeem Israel from the hand of the enemy, and to gather them out of the lands, from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south. This is found in not only the New Testament but the Old, as the Lord expounded to the sorrowing disciples on the day of His resurrection, both which teach the sufferings of Christ and the glories which should follow them (Luk 24 ). ‘Ought not Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?’ Indeed, He had taught the same before His death. There will be the bright and judicial manifestation in its due season, for as the lightning, when it lighteneth out of the one part under the heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven, even so shall the Son of man be in His day. But first must He suffer many things and be rejected of this generation. Then indeed will He bless Israel, in turning every one of them away from his iniquities.
Of Him Moses was but a shadow, however honoured of God as both ruler and deliverer, with an angel’s hand that appeared to him in the bush. Jesus the Son of man will Himself appear on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory; and He shall send forth His angels with a great sound of trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other. A greater than Moses shall be displayed in that day; but in this day a far greater humiliation was His than that of Moses. Still in both respects the analogy was close, evident, and intentional, for the Holy Spirit in the word was providing for the help of man in warning or in blessing, and the clear intimations of scripture left the Jew especially without excuse, as Stephen demonstrates.
‘This [man] led them out, having wrought wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years.’ None denies that Moses stands in the front rank of great as well as good men; but it is God Who made His presence signally known and respected in what He did by him chiefly, though sometimes without him, in that long succession of wilderness patience, and of power, fruitful in wonders, abundant in instruction. Stephen’s aim is, however, to give scope to an undercurrent of analogy to Christ, and hence the man Moses comes into prominence, the better to furnish it as his solemn appeal to a people who never forgot their oldest folly and never truly learnt from God when again putting them to the test. What could Moses have done in the desert without God for one day, not to speak of forty years? What wonders and signs could he otherwise have wrought in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea, before Meribah on the day of Massah in the wilderness, when the Jewish fathers tried Jehovah, proved Him, and saw His work?
There was intrinsic power in the person of the Son, Who from everlasting to everlasting is God. Only, subsisting in the form of God, He counted it not a thing to be grasped to be on an equality with God (in blessed contrast with the first man, who sought to be what he was not, to God’s dishonour and in disobedience), but emptied Himself, taking a bondman’s form, coming in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, death of the cross. All between His birth and death was alike moral perfection; a Man Who never did, never sought, His own will, nothing but the will of God, till all closed in the yet deeper doing it by suffering for sin in death of atonement, that God might be glorified even as to sin, and we righteously delivered. But in His service, of Him pre-eminently it could be said that God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, Who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with Him. And if that generation denied Him, saying, Who established thee ruler and judge? none the less did God raise Him to be a more blessed Redeemer, a more glorious Ruler of the kings of the earth, as He is ordained of God to be Judge of living and dead, whilst He will also fulfil every hope of Israel according to the prophets.
No wonder therefore it is added by Stephen, ‘This is the Moses that said to the sons of Israel, A prophet will God raise up to you out of your brethren, like me.’ The difficulties and differences of the most celebrated Rabbis prove what a stone of stumbling is the true Christ, the Lord Jesus, to unbelieving Israel. How otherwise could we account for such a man as Abarbanel perverting the words of Deu 18:18 here cited, to Jeremiah? If there be among the prophets, yea, in all the people, a marked contrast with the honoured deliverer from Egypt and the law-giver in the wilderness, it is the mourning man of Anathoth, whose testimony and life show a continuous struggle of grief and shame between his burning sense of God’s ignored rights and his love for the people of God who most of all ignored them, as well as himself. Utterly untenable is the theory of Aben Ezra and others, that Joshua is meant, who but supplemented, and in little more than one direction, Moses’ work, but in no adequate way stands out as the prophet raised up from his brethren like Moses. Hence the effort of some most distinguished among the Jewish teachers to interpret as a succession this singular prophet! which is as contrary to usage in the language as to the fact in their history. Compare Num 12:6-8 and Deu 34:10-12 . The position of mediator, whose words must be heard on pain of death, points to Moses’ peculiarity, only in the highest degree true of none but Messiah. And if the Jews did not then realize the consequence of refusing to hearken to Him, soon did the threat begin to fall on their guilty heads. ‘The wrath’, says the apostle Paul, ‘is come upon them to the uttermost’ (1Th 2:16 ). And not yet have they paid the last farthing. The unequalled tribulation is still before them, though a believing remnant will be delivered out of it, hearkening to Him Whom the nation opposed to their own ruin.
The parallel is yet further pursued in what follows. ‘This is he that was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers; who received living oracles to give us: to whom our fathers would not be subject, but thrust [him] away and turned in their hearts into Egypt, saying to Aaron, Make us gods who shall go before us, for this Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him’ (vers. 38-40).
Moses is presented in his mediatorial position, between the angel of Jehovah on the one hand, and ‘our fathers’ on the other. In the ‘church’ is suggestive of thoughts and associations altogether misleading. The children of Israel are meant in their collective capacity. It has not the smallest bearing on what in the New Testament is called the church of God, the body of Christ, indeed this is only noticed here in order to guard souls from an error so grave. The church is part of that ‘great mystery’ or secret which the apostle was given to reveal, the mystery hidden from ages and generations but now made manifest to the saints. What God was then doing by Moses was part of His ordinary dealings, when Israel so readily overlooked the promises to the fathers and took their stand, to their speedy sorrow and inevitable ruin, on their own obedience as the tenure of their blessings.
Immense indeed was the privilege vouchsafed, not only then in works, but in words of God henceforth given to man in permanence. It was not merely that the angel spake to Moses, but he ‘received living oracles to give us’ – an unspeakable boon, yet more characteristic of the greater than Moses, Whose coming was followed by a fresh, complete, and final revelation of divine grace and truth. Indeed the citation of Moses’ own prophecy in ver. 37 prepared the way for new communications with a yet higher sanction. In vain then would Jewish unbelief idolize the servant in sight of his Master.
But on the one hand ‘lively’ is too slight here, as also in 1Pe 1:3 and 2: 5, on the other ‘life-giving’ goes too far, and at any rate is not the epithet intended; for this is to characterize the oracles themselves, not their effect on others. I know not why Mr. Humphry should have endorsed the error which K?hnol adopted from Grotius. And why ‘saving’? This is but to change, not to translate or to expound, any more than the opposite lowering of the sense by J. Piscator and J. Alberti as if received viva voce! ‘Living’ alone is right and sufficient. And how did the children of Israel treat one thus signally honoured in that day? ‘They would not be subject’ to him. If the fathers so treated Moses, was it surprising that their children did not receive the Messiah of Whom he prophesied, and was besides so striking a type? Thus the simple recall of scripture history vividly presents the actual guilt of the Jews where any had ears to hear. If their fathers of old thrust Moses from them, what of that incomparably more honoured Prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, so recently delivered up to be condemned and crucified? That their hearts were gone from God and turned to Egypt was plain enough then from their appeal to Aaron and from his shameless compliance. But was it less true now when a robber was preferred to ‘the Anointed of the Lord’? ‘Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber’ (Joh 18:40 ). ‘Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you.’ The difference between the fathers and the children was not in favour of those then alive, ever dull to estimate the present race, and self above all, which it most concerns men to judge aright. Yet is it exactly what the Spirit of God effects in every soul that comes to God: if there is living faith, there is true repentance.
But unbelief craves a present and visible guide. ‘Make us gods who shall go before us. For this Moses, who brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.’ Israel was rebellious, when Moses was on high; and so is the Jew now that Christ is gone to heaven. But is it only the Jew? Does the Gentile stand in the truth? Only by his faith can it be, as the apostle declares. Is not Christendom high-minded, instead of humbly and heartily hearing? Is it not lifted up with pride, instead of abiding in goodness? And what must be its end? ‘Thou also shalt be cut off.’ Christendom, little thinking it, is doomed. If God spared not the natural branches, the Jews. He will certainly not spare the presumptuous wild-olive graft; and Israel as such shall be saved (Rom 11 ).
Alas! the baptized soon forsook their own mercies and denied the special testimony for which they were responsible to God’s glory before the world. They got weary of dependence on an exalted but absent Lord; they ceased to wait for His return from heaven; they practically superseded the presence and free action of the Holy Spirit in the assembly, they gave up their bridal separateness for worldly influence and favour, and they swamped grace under a system of law and ordinances: so that the word of God became of little or no effect through tradition, as departure from the truth became more and more the state of those who professed the name of the Lord. Insubjection to Him speedily bred alienation, and the heart soon turned toward that world out of which grace calls and severs to God. Men are even more naturally idolatrous than sceptical, unbelief being the mother of both these enemies to God and His truth. Men love to have gods to go before them. The true Deliverer being irksome passes readily out of mind: ‘we know not what is become of him.’ Is not the wilderness history prophetic? Did not these things happen as types of us that we should not be lusting after evil things, as they also lusted, nor be idolaters, as some of them? Indeed all the things recorded happened to them as types, and were written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the ages are come.
‘And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice to the idol and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. But God turned and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in [the] book of the prophets, Did ye offer Me victims and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your [or, the] god Remphan, the forms which ye made to worship them; and I will transport you beyond Babylon’ (vers. 41 43). So prone is man, incredulous man, to abandon the living God, in spite of daily standing witness of His power and grace, as well as of His solemn occasional judgments before all eyes; so readily does he take up that idolatry which he had but lately known to dominate the high and mighty the refined and learned – the world, in short, where he himself had been enslaved. So powerful an adversary is ‘public opinion’ to the will and glory of God, even in the face of the grandest exhibitions of His favour to His people, and of stern unmistakable punishment on their enemies, and, not least, of shame on their gods who could neither help their votaries nor screen themselves. Nor did the ‘calf’, the abomination of Egypt, satisfy Israel; they craved after objects higher than the works of their own hands whatever the charm of this to man’s vain heart. Once yielding to the snare Israel must outdo Egypt. So ‘God turned and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven.’ Grovelling idolatry aspires to higher things and inflates itself with its heavenly imaginations. Not Stephen is the authority for so withering a charge, but Amos (Amo 5:25-27 ). In the prophets’ Book it is written: would an Israelite gainsay them too? or tax scripture itself with saying blasphemous things against Israel? The forms of Moloch, ‘horrid king’, and of Remphan, they made to worship, and they did worship them.
And not the least repulsive feature of this early corruption among the chosen people was that they offered all the while victims and sacrifices in the wilderness to Jehovah. To be lavish in honour of false gods the poorest can afford, who complain of what is due to the true God, as if He were a rigid exactor and not the Giver of every good and every perfect gift.
But divine judgment is sure if it seem to slumber, and the prophet Amos at a far later day pronounces the sentence for the sin perpetrated in the desert. Whatever may have been the aggravation afterwards, it is the firs. sin which decides. Evil never gets better, never works itself out, though it may easily, and always does, wax worse. The evil heart of unbelief departs more and more from the living God. Patience may go on for ages in ways admirable to the eye of faith; but judgment, however deferred is certain, and in due time is revealed though it may be long before it is executed.
Neither Damascus, the head of Syria (Amo 5:27 ), nor Babylon, the golden city, is the limit of Israel’s deportation from the land they had defiled. ‘I will transport you beyond’ – saith the Lord. To say that ‘Babylon’, true in fact was an error in quotation is a statement Mr. Humphry should have left to sceptics.
‘Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as He that spake to Moses commanded to make it according to the model which he had seen, which also our fathers having in succession received brought [it] in with Joshua. in their taking possession of the Gentiles whom God drove out from [the] face of our fathers, until the days of David; who found favour before God and asked to find a habitation for the God1 of Jacob, but Solomon built Him a house’ (vers. 44-47).
1 p.m. BDH join against all other witnesses in reading ‘the house’, instead of ‘the God’, and Tischendorf actually accepts it! – ‘a habitation for the house of Jacob’!
Yet all this while of idolatrous iniquity ‘our fathers of Israel’ had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, made as they were assured according to the model Moses had seen and God commanded. That the heathen who know not God could serve idols is not surprising, however sad their sin and inexcusable; seeing that their fathers once knew God, but glorifying Him not as God, nor thankful, they became vain in their imaginations and with darkened heart in their folly changed His glory into an image of the creature which they worshipped and served rather than the Creator Who is blessed for ever. Amen. And for this cause God delivered them up to vile affections and the most unnatural evil, as well as to a mind void of judgment, so that knowing the judgment of God against all who do such things worthy of death, they not only practise the same but have pleasure in those that do them (Rom 1:20-32 ).
How much more guilty were those who knew far better, who stood in national relationship with God as His own peculiar and favoured people, and had the very tent of the testimony for Him and against their ways! They bore it not only in the wilderness from father to son, but into the goodly land whence God by Joshua drove out the old heathen inhabitants that Israel might be in the possession of it, adding thus gross hypocrisy to their greedy idolatry. There is no corruption so grievous as that of God’s people; and therefore His proportionate chastenings ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities’ (Amo 3:2 ).
In the days of David (2Sa 7:1-17 ), the favour which God showed him wrought in the heart of the king, who asked to build a house for Jehovah, but had as his answer that Jehovah would make him a house, and that his son Solomon should build a house for His name, as Stephen here recounts.
Here then, thought the Jew, must Jehovah restrict Himself to that ‘magnifical’ palace of His holiness. For unbelieving man must have an idol somewhere. ‘But the Highest dwelleth not in [places]1 made with hands; even as the prophet saith, The heaven [is] My throne, and the earth a footstool of My feet: what sort of house will ye build Me, saith [the] Lord, or what [is] My place of rest? Did not My hand make all these things?’ (vers. 48-50). Superstitious exaltation of the temple detracts from His glory Who gives it all its distinctive grandeur. Jehovah did deign to hallow and glorify it, so that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud; for the glory of Jehovah had filled the house of God. But Solomon himself at that august consecration had owned that heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him, much less the house he had just built! And so afterward spoke the prophet Isaiah (Isa 66:1 ), long before Babylon was allowed to burn and destroy the object of Israel’s pride. It was no afterthought to console the Jew in his subjection to Gentile masters: so had Israel’s king spoken to God; and so had God spoken to Israel long before the Chaldeans had become an adversary commissioned to chastise their idolatry.
It was right and pious to own the condescending grace of Jehovah, it was presumptuous to limit His glory to the temple He was pleased to make His dwelling. The Creator had created all and was immeasurably above the universe. From such a point of view what was Jerusalem or the temple? Who was now in accord with the testimony of Solomon and of Isaiah? The accusers, or Stephen? The answer is beyond controversy, and their enmity without excuse.
In these verses we have the conclusion of the address, a most grave and pointed appeal to the consciences of the Jews who, under the form of a most instructive and wonderfully compressed summary of their national sins from first to last, heard of God’s unparalleled dealings with Israel. The facts were beyond question, the language (even when most unsparing) that of their own confessedly inspired writers, the accusation therefore as unutterably solemn as it was impossible either to rebut or to evade.
1 The best authorities ABCDE, some cursives, and all the ancient versions save the Armenian, et al., have no such addition as ‘temples’ in the Received Text and most junior MSS., et al.
‘Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts1 and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers, so ye. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they slew those that announced beforehand of the coming of the Righteous One, of Whom now ye became2 betrayers and murderers, ye which received the law as ordinances of angels and kept [it] not’ (vers. 51-53).
1 There is a question of reading between (with, or without, ), and . A few of the oldest, ACD, with some cursives, support the plural but EHP with the mass of cursives, ancient versions, et al., give the singular. The reading of the Vatican is a clerical error of , for probably. Some, as the Sinaitic, add .
2 The chief uncials ( ABCDE), well supported by cursives, present ‘became’; the majority of cursives, with HP, have ‘ye have been’ which seems to have slipped, or been put, in to add force to the simple fact.
‘I have seen this people’ said Jehovah to Moses at the Mount Sinai ‘and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people’ (Exo 32:9 ), again (Exo 33:3 ), ‘I will not go up in the midst of thee: for thou art a stiff-necked people, lest I consume thee in the way.’ ‘For Jehovah had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel Ye are a stiff-necked people’ (ver. 5). But this very fact is turned into a pica by the skilful advocacy of the mediator: ‘If now I have found grace in Thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray Thee, go among us, for it is a stiff-necked people, and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for Thine inheritance’ (Exo 34:9 ). If Stephen repeated the word at the end of their history, it was fully borne out from the beginning. ‘How much more after my death?’ said Moses (Deu 31:27 ). ‘For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days’ (ver. 29). The predicted evil was about to be, as it had been already, fulfilled to the letter, and as the latter days are not yet run out, so neither is this evil exhausted: ‘this generation’ still repeats the same sad tale of unbelief and departure from the living God.
It is Moses again (Lev 26 ) who lets Israel know how Jehovah will avenge the breach of His covenant. And yet if thus their ‘uncircumcised hearts’ be humbled, and they truly accept the punishment of their iniquity, then will He remember His covenant with Jacob and with Isaac and with Abraham, and will remember the land.
But there was another, and the main, fatal charge made by Stephen: ‘Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers, ye also.’ Before the deluge He strove with man, though Jehovah said it should not be so always, and thus set a term to His patient testimony of a hundred and twenty years (Gen 6:3 ). After that judgment of the whole race, Israel was the theatre of His operations, according to the word that Jehovah covenanted with them when they came out of Egypt. But they rebelled, and vexed His Holy Spirit: therefore He was turned to be their enemy, He fought against them (Isa 63:10 ). Here again Stephen had the surest warrant for vindicating Jehovah and His Anointed, and for convicting the proud stubborn Jews of their old iniquity and opposition to every dealing of His grace. Alas! they were, as Moses told them at the outset, a very forward generation, children in whom is no faith; and without faith there is no life, nor is it possible to please God. Faith working by love seeks His glory and is subject to His word, the expression of His mind and will. Israel without faith was the sad and constant witness of a people outwardly and in profession near to God, their heart ever far from Him and pertinacious in antagonism to Him. Their rejection of the Messiah, their indifference to, or malignant contempt of, the Pentecostal Spirit, were only of a piece with their history throughout. Far yet from being the light of the blind heathen, the instructor of the benighted nations, they are the ringleader of the world’s rebellion against God, uniform only in this from father to son throughout their generations.
‘Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?’ The prophets dealt with the people’s sin, exposing it fearlessly in the light of truth righteousness, and God’s judgment, while looking onward to the kingdom of God which should set aside all evil, and the suffering Messiah should be exalted and extolled and very high. It was this confronting the wicked will of man with the light of God that condemned it, which drew out the enmity of Israel, and made the prophet an object of dishonour and hostility nowhere so much as in his own country. God was brought near; and guilty man will not have God at any price. Had Stephen gone outside the record, or misinterpreted its spirit? Jeremiah (who was not a whit behind the rest in the bitter contempt and positive persecution he had to bear from priests, prophets, and princes) bears a plain testimony to God’s sending on the one hand, and to Israel’s rebellion on the other. So in 2Ch 36:15 , 2Ch 36:16 , we read, ‘Jehovah God of their fathers sent to them by His messengers, rising up betimes and sending; because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place; but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of Jehovah arose against His people, till there was no remedy.’ Was not Stephen then right in asking, ‘Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?’
But did not the Jews delight in the promised Messiah? Did they not eagerly anticipate His kingdom, when they will be delivered out of the hand of their enemies, and all that hate them be covered with shame and dismay, and glory dwell in their land, and blessing chase away the gross darkness of the earth? Whatever their thoughts afterwards, their bitterest rancour broke out against those that announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One. If there was any difference, such ‘they slew’. It was a kingdom they wanted with ease and honour for themselves; not a King to reign in righteousness, and princes to rule in judgment. No care had they for the inalienable principles of His kingdom; no love, but heart-hatred, for every quality of the divine nature, and for God’s rights, which, if in abeyance, can never be abdicated. He was in none of their thoughts, nor His Anointed; and those who held Him before them were most obnoxious to the nation, so that the occasion failed not to work their violent death. And if their children built the tombs of the prophets, and flattered themselves that they were of wholly different temper and condition, the farthest removed from participation in the guilt of the prophets’ blood, they only proved thereby that they were blinded by the enemy, and they witnessed to themselves that they were sons of those that slew them.
For faith does not act in garnishing sepulchres, or in monumental tablets to the holy sufferers of days gone by; faith walks and suffers reproach, if not worse persecution, in the days that are, looking for heaven and glory only when Christ appears. Unbelief, on the contrary, seeks present satisfaction and credit in the honouring of those who render no more a living testimony to their consciences, and it falls under the cheat of the enemy who builds up the higher that hypocritical temple of worldly religion where those once despised and slain as martyrs now fill a niche as idols.
And the Lord tested, as He always does, delusion and falsehood. He sends fresh testimony, and will do so till judgment. He sent His servants when on earth; He sent them from on high, as He continues to send. And the world hates the true and faithful, as it loves its own. But He Himself is ever the most searching of all tests, and how did He fare at their hands? ‘Of Whom now ye became betrayers and murderers.’
It was possible to complain of others. No saint, no prophet. was immaculate or infallible. ‘In many things we all stumble’ – I say not must, but do (Jas 3:2 ). And if it be so now, since redemption and the gift of the Holy Spirit, it was assuredly so in the less privileged times that preceded. The unfriendly eye of man could descry even in the most blessed of God’s servants words and ways which were sadly short of Christ and which might be perverted into an excuse for slighting their testimony. But what could they say or think of the Righteous One Who appeals to them, ‘Which of you convinceth Me of sin?’ ‘If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smitest thou Me?’ He was indeed the Holy One of God, Who did no sin, neither was guilt found in His mouth, yet was He treated with altogether unprecedented and most aggravated scorn; and though lawless men had their hand in the cross, the heart and the will of the Jews were engaged in an incomparably deeper way (Joh 19:11 ). They were betrayers and murderers of their Messiah, God’s Messiah; and Stephen only applies to the living Jews around him what the prophets had declared fully of old, what David had written in the Spirit long before Isaiah and Micah, and Zechariah afterwards, to speak only of the plainest.
By one more characteristic does this most resolute witness of the Lord further explain to the Jews their position and their guilt, ‘Which received the law as ordinances of angels and kept it not.’ That law in which they boasted was their shame, certainly from no fault in itself, for all the evil was in them. But so it is with man, and most of all with man professing to have a religion from God. His boast is his most manifest condemnation. It matters little what he boasts in; it is at best worthless. There is indeed a resource given in God’s infinite grace, where he may and ought to boast; but it is in the Lord, not truly in the law which he fondly flattered himself he was keeping, when in fact he had utterly and miserably failed, and in all its parts, Godward and manward, in himself and toward others. The Lord he had definitively disdained; nor in truth does any soul receive Him till sense of sin before God breaks him down overwhelmingly, whilst notwithstanding he casts himself on God’s mercy, till he sees the rich and perfect provision made for such as he is in the offering of the body of Christ once for all. Then he does truly boast in the Lord, as it is meet he should.
The apostle’s language in Gal 3:19 by its similarity materially helps to clear up the words of Stephen here, though it is painful to observe how few seem to have profited thereby. Each word of the phrase ( ) has been the occasion of strange perplexity and dispute among the learned to the depravation of the sense. Winer (N. T. Gr. xxxii. 4, 6) refers to Mat 12:41 as illustrative of the force here too of the preposition, but the difference of the phrases seems to render the desired sameness impossible. ‘Repenting at’ the preaching of Jonah is very intelligible and clearly meant; not so ‘receiving’ at ordinances of angels.
Hence Alford, who follows this later suggestion of the German grammarian, understands it as ‘at the injunction’ of angels. But this departs from the sense we had got for from Gal 3:19 , which signifies, beyond just doubt, ‘ordained’ or administered through angels, not ‘enjoined’ by them, a very different idea, as also is ‘promulgated’.
Now what is the meaning of receiving the law as ordinances of angels? Those who take here as ‘at’ are obliged therefore, in order to make sense, to interpret as ‘injunctions’, swerving in this from the true force of the participle in Gal 3:19 . It appears to me accordingly, that, if it be ‘ordinances’ here in keeping with ‘ordained’ there, we must understand eij” in the very common Hellenistic sense of ‘as’ rather than ‘at’, the accusative of the predicate, to which Winer had inclined in earlier editions, and, as I believe, more rightly. Israel received the law, not as a code drawn up by human wisdom, but as administered by angels, and so through their intervention, from God. Hence the solemnity of their failure to keep what was divine. The allusion seems to be to Deu 33:2 . Jehovah came from Sinai, rose up from Seir unto them, He shone forth from Mount Paran, and He came from the myriads of holiness (or, holy myriads) – from His right hand a law of fire (or, fiery law) for them. Compare Psa 68:17 . It is needless to cite Josephus, Philo, or the Rabbis What is of more moment, Heb 2:2 quite falls in with the Galatians and with our text. In the Septuagint we find singular confusion; for, first instead of ‘holiness’ they seem to have understood ‘Kadesh’; and yet, secondly, they bring ‘His angels’ into the last clause, instead of ‘a law of fire’; so that their version errs greatly from the text.
The discourse is thus brought to a due conclusion; and this terse and pointed application does not sustain the notion of an abrupt stop which shut out words needful to complete Stephen’s answer to the accusation. The facts adduced throughout, and now condensed in the final and most cutting appeal, which laid bare their pride not more than their persistent rebellion and extreme rum, appear to my mind singularly effective and complete. He begins with their habitual antagonism, fathers and sons alike, to the Holy Spirit, so that their prime religious badge had lost all meaning – their circumcision was become uncircumcision. They had persecuted the prophets, they had slain those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One, they had now actually betrayed and murdered Himself; and of course the law (received so solemnly through angels)1 they kept not, notwithstanding all their self-righteous pretensions, as if to have the law were to do it.
1 There is not the least ground to take angels here as human messengers: the corresponding scriptures refute the idea; and the meaning which would thus result is as unworthy of the context as it is illegitimate. Again, ‘by troops of angels’ is not more opposed to grammar than to philology; as also ‘by’ (A.V.) the disposition of angels is clearly untenable.
It was man, not left to himself like the nations who were suffered to walk in their own ways, but governed as Israel was by God’s law, enlightened by prophets, blessed with the coming of the Messiah, and according to the word that Jehovah covenanted when they came out of Egypt, so His Spirit stood among them: no people till then so privileged, none so guilty, and, we may add, none so convicted; for they had broken the law, persecuted the prophets, slain the Messiah, and had always resisted the Holy Ghost (cp. Hag 2:5 ).
The closing scene of Stephen, and a very momentous turning-point in God’s ways, are both brought before us vividly in the verses that follow.
‘Now hearing these things they were deeply cut to their hearts and were gnashing their teeth at him. But being full of the Holy Spirit, looking fixedly into heaven, he saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, Lo, I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. But they crying with a loud voice held their ears and rushed upon him with one accord, and cast out of the city and stoned [him]. And the witnesses laid aside their clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul, and stoned Stephen, invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And kneeling down he cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And having said this he fell asleep. And Saul was consenting to the making him away’ (Act 7:54-60 ; Act 8:1 ).
It is for the truth told in love that those who are Christ’s should suffer, for this only; and so it was now. For Stephen’s love and faithfulness there was hatred, as with the Master.
But a more blessed picture nowhere appears of the Christian. The Jews resisted – he was full of – the Holy Spirit; his gaze was fixed on heaven, as ours should be, and he was given to see actually, as we only by faith can see, the glory of God and Jesus at His right hand.
It is true, there is a difference. It was as yet a transitional time and Jesus he saw ‘standing’ there: He had not taken definitely His seat, but was still giving the Jews a final opportunity. Would they reject the testimony to Him gone on high indeed, but as a sign waiting if peradventure they might repent and He might be sent to bring in the times of refreshing here below? Stephen in these last words accentuated the call, as he said, ‘Lo, I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of man’ (for so He is attested, the rejected Messiah exalted in heaven for a far larger glory) ‘standing at the right hand of God’. Thus not only does he look up, as the characteristic outlook of the Christian, but the heavens he sees to be opened (another fact full of blessing to us), and Jesus is beheld as Son of man in the glory of God. He Who came down Son of God in supreme love to die for us is gone up in righteousness, raised from the dead and glorified in heaven, and the believer filled with the Spirit and suffering for His sake sees Him there. Once the heavens opened on Him here as He received the Holy Spirit and ‘was acknowledged Son of God. By and by from the opened heaven He will come forth King of kings and Lord of lords to execute judgment on the quick. The place and privilege of the Christian is between these two, and Stephen here sets it forth in its fullest light.
‘But they crying with a loud voice held their ears and rushed upon him with one accord, and cast out of the city and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid aside their clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul, and stoned Stephen invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit’ (vers. 57-59). Such was religious man, not secular nor heavenly, but now filled with murderous wrath, because he stands convicted of opposition to the present and full truth of God, utterly blind alike to His grace and His glory. And in that guilty scene was one not less dark and infuriated than the rest, Saul of Tarsus, afterward to be the witness of the very Jesus Whom he was then persecuting in Stephen’s person, for he not only beheld, but took the part here assigned to him with those that stoned Stephen invoking and saying, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’
There is no ground for the addition in the Authorized Version of ‘God’, and a questionable need for that in the Revised Version of ‘the Lord’. It was on the Lord that His dying servant called, as the blessed Lord dying commended His spirit to His Father’s hands.
Each is exquisitely in place, which here is somewhat rudely disturbed by the common version. No one doubts that the usual address is to God to the Father; but as little should it be forgotten that there are special circumstances where we not only may but ought to call on ‘the Lord’, as we see in Act 1:24 , and also in 2Co 12:8 . But in no case is it sweeter than when the servant dies for his Master as here, though he rightly puts it as a prayer to the Lord to receive his spirit; not as the Lord Jesus so appropriately, and according to scripture, commended His spirit into His Father’s hands.
But this is far from all, blessed as it is. For ‘kneeling down he cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.’ – There was nothing of consequence in calling with a loud voice on the Lord; for well he knew that He would hear and answer a whispered petition – that He would receive his spirit – as readily as in the loudest tones. His importunate earnestness was for others, divine love for his enemies then murdering him. It was also the reproduction of the spirit of Christ, the practical anticipation of what Peter exhorted later the saints to do: If ye do well suffer for it, and take it patiently, this is acceptable [this is grace] with God (1Pe 2:20 ). It is more than taking patiently, as it was then simple suffering for well-doing and Christ. But it is set before us as the pattern for a believer now; practical grace rising above all injury and malice; present and perfect rest in the Saviour, as became a heavenly man full of the Holy Spirit.
‘And having said this, he fell asleep.’ Well he might: his work was done and well done; and his cup of suffering filled to the brim, but only so as to bring out his last and fervent cry, the intercession of love to the Lord on behalf of those who were slaying His servant.
‘And Saul’, it is added quietly, ‘was consenting to the making him away’ (Act 8:1 ). He was not there accidentally, nor without full participation in the bloody business of that never-to-be-forgotten day. It is not so that man would have chosen him who was to be the most self-denying, laborious, and effective workman the Lord ever raised up in the gospel; the most comprehensive, profound, and elevated of apostles in leading the church into the hitherto unrevealed mystery of its union with Christ the Head over all things. A darker page, we know, has yet to be traced, and never more than the day which dawned on his conversion. But how often it is so in the ways of sovereign grace! ‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts’ (Isa 55:8 , Isa 55:9 ). It is ordered thus that no flesh should glory before God; but he that glorieth let him glory in the Lord. So it is written (1Co 1:29 , 1Co 1:31 ).
LONDON C. A. HAMMOND 11 LITTLE BRITAIN, E.C.1 1952
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 7:1-8
1The high priest said, “Are these things so?” 2And he said, “Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3and said to him, ‘Leave your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you.’ 4Then he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. From there, after his father died, God had him move to this country in which you are now living. 5But He gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground, and yet, even when he had no child, He promised that He would give it to him as a possession, and to his descendants after him. 6But God spoke to this effect, that his descendants would be aliens in a foreign land, and that they would be enslaved and mistreated for four hundred years. 7And whatever nation to which they will be in bondage I Myself will judge,’ said God, ‘and after that they will come out and serve Me in this place.’ 8And He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.”
Act 7:1 “The high priest” This was Caiaphas. See note at Act 4:6.
Act 7:2 “And he said” Stephen’s defense is very similar to the book of Hebrews. He answered the charges in two ways: (1) the Jewish people had continually rejected Moses in the past and (2) the Temple was only one of several ways that God used to speak with Israel. This is a direct answer to the charges brought against him in Act 6:13.
“Hear” This is the aorist active imperative form of the Greek word akou. It is used in the Septuagint to translate the famous prayer of Judaism, the Shema (cf. Deu 6:4-5). It is also used in the prophets to reflect the sense of “hear so as to respond” (cf. Mic 1:2; Mic 6:1). It is difficult to be certain this technical connotation is present when these Jewish men express their Hebrew thoughts in Koine Greek words, but in some contexts like this it may be true.
“‘The God of glory” This God of glory (cf. Psa 29:3) appeared to the Patriarch Abraham (cf. Gen 12:1; Gen 15:1; Gen 15:4; Gen 17:1; Gen 18:1; Gen 22:1), thus beginning the Jewish people. See Special Topic at Act 3:13.
“Abraham” Abraham was considered the father of the Jewish people. He was the first Patriarch. His call and subsequent walk with God are described in Gen 12:1 to Gen 25:11. In Galatians 3 and later Romans 4 Paul uses him as the paradigm of justification by grace through faith.
“when he was in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran” Gen 11:31 implies that Abraham was in the city of Haran when YHWH spoke to him. However, the time of God’s contact with Abraham was not specifically stated. Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans (cf. Gen 11:28; Gen 11:31), but later moved to Haran (cf. Gen 11:31-32; Gen 29:4) following God’s command. The point is that God spoke to Abraham outside of the land of Canaan. Abraham did not own or possess any part of the Holy Land (cf. Act 7:5) during his lifetime (except a cave to bury his family, cf. Gen 23:9).
The term “Mesopotamia” can refer to the different ethnic groups:
1. a people group in the northern area of the Tigris and Euphrates (i.e., “Syria between the Rivers”)
2. a people group near the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates
Act 7:3 “Leave your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you” This is a quote from Gen 12:1. The theological issue involved in this quote is when God says this to Abram:
1. while he was in Ur before he took his father Terah and nephew Lot to Haran
2. while he was in Haran and he waited until his father died to follow God south to Canaan?
Act 7:4 “he left the land of the Chaldeans” Chaldea (BDB 505) may be the name of a district close to the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (see note at Act 7:2). It later came to refer to the nation which developed in this region, also known as Babylon (BDB 93). This nation also produced many scholars who developed mathematical formulas related to the movement of the night lights (i.e., planets, stars, comets, etc.). This group of wise men (i.e., astrologers) was also known by the name Chaldean (cf. Dan 2:2; Dan 4:7; Dan 5:7-11).
“Haran” Haran (BDB 357) is a city to which Terah, Abraham, and Lot moved (cf. Gen 11:31-32). Another of Abram’s brothers settled there and the place is called by his name (i.e., city of Nahor, cf. Gen 24:10; Gen 27:43). This city on the upper part of the Euphrates (i.e., tributary river, Balikh) was started in the third millennium B.C. and has retained its name until today. Just as a note of interest, Abraham’s brother, Haran (BDB 248), is not spelled the same in Hebrew as the city.
“after his father died” Many have seen a contradiction here between Gen 11:26; Gen 11:32; Gen 12:4. There are at least two possible solutions.
1. Abraham might not have been the oldest son, but the most famous son (i.e., listed first).
2. The Samaritan Pentateuch has Terah’s age at death at 145, not 205, as the Hebrew text.
See Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 378.
Act 7:5 “He promised that He would give it to him as a possession, and to his descendants after him” This is an allusion to Gen 12:7 or Act 17:8. The theological key is not only God’s promise, but Abraham’s faith in God giving him a descendant as well as a land. This faith is highlighted in Gen 15:6 (cf. Gal 3:6; Rom 4:3).
Act 7:6 This predictive prophecy is stated in Gen 15:13-14 and reaffirmed in Exo 3:12. However, Exo 12:40 has “430 years” instead of “400 years.” The Septuagint (LXX) translates Exo 12:40 as “and the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan was 430 years.”
The rabbis have said that the number “400 years” starts with the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22. John Calvin has called the 400 years a round number. It may relate to four generations of 100 years each (cf. Gen 15:16).
Act 7:7 “And whatever nation” This is a quote from the Septuagint of Gen 15:14. This is not meant to be obtuse, but is a general statement. The nation was obviously Egypt. Other nations, however (i.e., Philistia, Syria, Assyria, Babylon), would become Israel’s oppressors and God will judge them also.
“and after that” This full phrase is a quote from Exo 3:12. Stephen is reciting a loose, running history of Israel.
This text asserts that Canaan and Jerusalem will uniquely become YHWH’s special place. This fits the emphasis of Deuteronomy.
“in this place” In the context of the quote from Exo 3:12, this refers to Mt. Sinai (see Special Topic at Act 7:30), which is also outside the Promised Land and is the site of one of the major events in the life of Israel (the giving of the Law to Moses).
Act 7:8 “covenant” See Special Topic at Act 2:47.
“circumcision” This was practiced by all of Israel’s neighbors, except the Philistines (Greek Aegean people). For most cultures it was usually a rite of passage into manhood, but not for Israel, where it was an initiation rite into the covenant People. It was a sign of a special faith relationship with YHWH (cf. Gen 17:9-14). Each Patriarch circumcised his own sons (i.e., acted as priest for his own family). Robert Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, p. 214, says the rite of circumcision connected the rite of blood-shedding with the act of circumcision. Blood was connected to covenant forming (cf. Gen 15:17), covenant breaking (cf. Gen 2:17), and covenant redemption (cf. Isaiah 53).
“the twelve patriarchs” This usually refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but here it refers to Jacob’s twelve sons, who will become the tribes of Israel.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Are these things so = If (App-118. a) these things are so.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
1.] On the H. P.s question, see Chrys. just quoted. It is parallel with Mat 26:62, but singularly distinguished from that question by its mildness: see above.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Let’s turn tonight to Acts chapter 7.
In the early church when a dispute arose among the Grecians–that is, those Jews of the Grecian culture. They were actually Jews, but they had followed the Grecian culture, which was a universal culture as the result of Alexander the Great’s conquest of the world. He left little pockets of Greek culture in the major areas and in Jerusalem. There were many who were no longer kosher. No longer following the Hebrew culture. But had adopted the Grecian culture, though they were still Jews. They felt that their widows were being slighted when the church was doling out its welfare program. And so they complained to the apostles, who said, “Let us appoint seven men that are of good report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, to take care of this ministry of administering the church’s welfare, in order that we might give ourselves continually to fasting and prayer.” And so Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, was chosen as one of the seven, as also was Philip. Now these men were chosen for the task of waiting tables. However, the Holy Spirit had other plans for them. But, I do believe that their faithfulness in those little things is what qualified them for the greater ministry that God had.
We really don’t start at the top in our ministry for the Lord. You have to start off with the little things. You have to start off with a plain, simple task. And as Jesus said, “Thou hast been faithful in a few things, now I will make you ruler of many.” And I think that this is the process that the Lord does follow. Our faithfulness in the little things. So often a person comes and says, “I want to get into the ministry”. And I say, “Go to the Sunday school department and volunteer, that’s the best place to start in the ministry.” If you can learn to relate God’s truth to children then you can relate it to anybody. It’s important that we get started in the Sunday school or some other small task in order that we might develop our own abilities as well as test to see if this is what God has actually called us to.
So many times when people say, “I want to go into the ministry,” they expect me to dismiss Romaine and put them in his place on the staff. And there have been those that have requested that we do that. But I’m convinced that every church needs a Romaine.
So Stephen was one of those that was chosen, full of wisdom, full of the Holy Spirit, and of a good report. But Stephen soon got into trouble. Not with the church, but because the Lord was working mightily through his life with great wonders–that is, the works of God that would cause people to wonder at them and miracles that he was doing. And so there were those of the synagogue of the Libertines who called him and challenged him. And they were not able to really deal with the Spirit of wisdom by which he spoke. So they hired some men to bear false witness against Stephen. And as Stephen was standing there in the counsel to face these charges, they all saw his face as though it was the face of an angel, that shining beautiful glow of the Spirit upon Stephen.
And so that brings us to chapter 7. As we noted, chapter 7 is really just a continuation of chapter 6, and you can’t really start straight off in seven, you’ve got to have the background from six to understand the beginning.
Then said the high priest, Are these things so? ( Act 7:1 )
You see, you’ve got to have chapter 6 where they accuse Stephen of blaspheming God, of saying that the temple was going to be destroyed, and of blaspheming Moses. Speaking against Moses and the temple. These were the false charges that were made–partially true. And, of course, a partial lie is probably one of the hardest things to fight. Partial truth, partial lie is extremely difficult to combat. An outright lie is no problem. But partial truth, partial lie is difficult to combat, and this is what he was facing. He, no doubt, had declared that Jesus was going to establish a new order. And that God was not met just in the temple, but God is now dealing with men everywhere in their hearts and lives. So the priest said, “Are these things so?”
And he said, Men, and brethren, and fathers, hearken ( Act 7:2 );
So now begins Stephens’ defense before the counsel, which is going to lead to his death. He is going to so anger them that they are going to pick up stones and gnash their teeth against him and stone him. It is interesting that in his defense he is, first of all, the accused. They have made these accusations against him, but before he is finished with his defense, he becomes the accuser and he accuses them. And his accusations of them was something that they couldn’t handle, and they took up stones and killed him. So he starts his defense in recounting their history. And as he recounts their history, going back to their father Abraham, whom they all acknowledged as the father of their nation, how that God had called him out of the land of his fathers to come to a land that God would ultimately give unto him and unto his seed for a possession. How that he journeyed to Haran until his father died, and then came on to the land that God had given to him. However, though God had promised him the entire land, he did not personally gain any inheritance in the land. Except that when his wife died, he bought a cave to bury her in, and that was the only part of the land that Abraham ever possessed–the burial cave that he had purchased from the people of the land. But then God had told Abraham that his seed was to go into a strange land where they would dwell for four hundred years. At which time God would deliver them from that land, and at that time He would give to them the land that He had promised unto them. And, that God would then judge the nation that had made them serve in such terrible bondage.
So he gave to Abraham 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. And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was with him ( Act 7:8-9 ),
The Jews not only lived in the present, they also lived in the past. Their history is extremely important to them. They have great reverence for the dead. And there is a feeling among the Jews that if you want to be near to God then you should be near the body of His saints. So they have a common practice of going to the graves of the patriarchs to pray. So at the cave of Mek Pela there in Hebron, you’ll find the Jews coming there by the hundreds to pray there at the burial cave were Abraham and Jacob were buried. You’ll find in Jerusalem on Mount Zion there is a place called the “Tomb of David”. And anytime of the day, you can go in there and find the older men, as a rule, praying there by the tomb of David. The same is true of the tomb of Rachel near Bethlehem. And they go to the graves of righteous people to pray because they have a feeling that the Spirit of God still remains around the graves of righteous people, and that’s a good place to get close to God. They prided themselves in their fathers and they were always talking about “our fathers” and always with great pride.
Stephen, in his address, is going to be showing them where the history of their fathers isn’t as illustrious and glorious as they would like to believe. Their fathers for envy sold Joseph into Egypt. They rejected Joseph. Sold him as a slave to Egypt, but God was with him. And He delivered him out of all of his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh the king of Egypt, who made him the governor over Egypt and all of his house.
Now there came a dearth over the land of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance ( Act 7:11 ).
You notice “our fathers”, but Joseph has been cast out by them.
But our fathers found no sustenance. But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first ( Act 7:11-12 ).
He’s really building the case on “our fathers”. He’s showing them that Judah and Levi and all these rotten brothers are actually their fathers.
And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers; and Joseph’s family was made known to Pharaoh. Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and his family, seventy-five all together. So Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died there, and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem. But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, till another king arose, which knew not Joseph ( Act 7:13-18 ).
He passes over from Joseph, who was rejected by their fathers, his brothers sold as a slave. That’s the first example he’s going to give of a mistake that their fathers made of a God-ordained leader. The second example that he is going to bring to them is that of Moses. And so he jumps right into Moses.
This Pharaoh dealt subtly with our family, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end that they might not live ( Act 7:19 ).
That is, the Pharaoh, you remember, ordered that all of the boy babies be slain and the girl babies be kept alive. And so he is making reference to that order of the Pharaoh.
In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding beautiful, and he nourished up in his father’s house for three months: and when he was cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son ( Act 7:20-21 ).
Actually, they were ordered to cast their children into the Nile River. Moses’ mother hid him for three months, and then when she cast him into the Nile River, she had made a little ark out of the bulrushes. And so she kept the order of the Pharaoh, she put him in the river, but in this little floating basket. And the Pharaoh’s daughter took him up and nourished him for her own son.
And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. And when he was a full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brothers the children of Israel. And when he saw one of them suffering wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and he killed the Egyptian: for he supposed [interesting he supposed] that his brothers would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them; but they did not understand ( Act 7:22-25 ).
Now when Moses came down to his brothers, he just felt, “Surely they will know that God put me in this position in order that I might deliver them.” But they did not understand this.
And so the next day when he showed himself again to them as they were fighting among themselves, he said, You fellows are brothers; why are you wronging each other? But he that was doing wrong to his neighbor thrust him away, saying, Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? Will you kill me, as you did the Egyptian yesterday? Then Moses fled at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, where he begat two sons. And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. And when Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and he drew near to behold it, and the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and dared not to behold. Then said the Lord to him, Put off your shoes from your feet: for the place where you stand is holy ground. I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and I am come down to deliver them ( Act 7:26-34 ).
That, to me, is very comforting as God says to Moses, “I have seen, I have heard, and I’ve come to help.” What is true of God’s people at that time is true of God’s people always. God sees, God hears, and God has come to help. God sees your affliction, God sees your trials, God hears your cry, God hears your call, and He responds. God has come to help.
And now, I will send you to Egypt. This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush ( Act 7:34-35 ).
In their fathers, they have two classic examples of their fathers putting out God’s anointed. Joseph’s brothers sold him as a slave. They rebelled against Joseph’s dream. You remember, he had a dream where the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowed down to him. He had a dream where his brothers and he were tying up their sheaves and his brothers’ sheaves all bowed down to his. In these dreams, it was declared that God had ordained Joseph as a ruler over his brothers, but they rebelled against that and they tried to get rid of him selling him as a slave to Egypt. And yet, God did exalt him and make him a ruler there in Egypt, and they came under his rulership later.
Now the same is true with Moses. They cast him out. Moses thought that they would know that God had ordained that he would be a ruler and leader among them, but they did not know. And they cast Moses out. But forty years later, God brought him back as a ruler and a deliverer for the people.
And so he uses these two examples of the mistakes that their fathers made of recognizing God’s ordained plan and God’s ordained ruler. There’s a pattern that exists in this nation.
He brought them out, after that he had showed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and the Red sea, and in the wilderness for forty years ( Act 7:36 ).
So Moses’ life, divided up into three forty-year periods. Forty years in the schools of Egypt, becoming something. Forty years in the wilderness, finding out he was nothing. Forty years leading the children of Israel through the wilderness, finding out that God could take nothing and make something out of it. And so, the forty-year divisions of Moses’ life.
This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me; and him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake unto him in Mount Sinai ( Act 7:37-38 ),
The church in the wilderness. The word church, ekklesia in Greek, literally means “the called out ones”. Israel was never called the church in the land, but they had been called out of Egypt, and thus, in the wilderness were known as “the called out ones”. The church today are those that God has called out of the world to be a special people, a peculiar nation unto Him.
there on Mount Sinai, with our fathers: he received the living oracles which he gave unto us ( Act 7:38 ):
That is, the oracle, is a spokesman of God’s Word, and there God gave to Moses the law, His Word.
To whom our fathers ( Act 7:39 )
You talk about your fathers, God gave them these living oracles but they would not obey them.
but they thrust him out from among them, and their hearts turned back again to Egypt ( Act 7:39 ),
You talk about your fathers, “Oh, our fathers this and our fathers that.” Your fathers rejected the law of God. They again cast Moses out and in their hearts they returned back to Egypt.
Saying to Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we don’t know what’s become of him ( Act 7:40 ).
He had been forty days up in the mountain, the people became impatient, and they came to Aaron and said, “We’re going to go back to Egypt. Make us gods that will lead us back to Egypt. We don’t know what’s happened to Moses.”
And so they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have you offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which you made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus ( Act 7:41-45 )
Now Jesus . . . there is a reference to Joshua in the Old Testament. I’ve told you over and over again that the name Jesus is the Greek for the Hebrew name Joshua. And because he is talking to them and it is translated here into the Greek, the name is given in Greek. But this is a reference to the historic man Joshua, who took over Moses’ place and led the children of Israel into the land. “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Joshua” …that is, the tabernacles of witness that were made in the wilderness. They brought it into the land.
whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; who found favor before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. But Solomon built him a house. Howbeit ( Act 7:45-48 )
Now, he was accused, you remember, of saying things against the temple. Solomon built Him a temple, however, he said,
the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet ( Act 7:48 ),
And, of course, you can go back to the Old Testament and you can find that they say that the Lord doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands, the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him. And so, Solomon is saying, “I have no illusions that this is going to be Your exclusive dwelling place. The heavens of heavens cannot hold You, how much less this house that I have built. But Lord, we want this house as a place where we can just come and meet You.”
For the Lord said,
Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: what house will you build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my abode? Hath not my hand made all these things? ( Act 7:49-50 )
I think of that whenever I think of giving to God. Because anytime I ever give to God anything, I’m only giving back to Him that which is His anyhow. Didn’t He make everything? He lets me be a steward of His goods, and in my giving to God, I’m only really giving that which is His anyhow.
Then he now gets to the application of the points that he has been subtly making. He presses now the application very directly.
You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so are you guilty [you’re doing the same thing]. Which of the prophets have your fathers not persecuted? ( Act 7:51-52 )
And if you go back into their history, you’ll find that their fathers persecuted every true prophet of God. Isaiah was persecuted and was sawn in two, ultimately. Jeremiah, thrown into the dungeon for speaking in the name of the Lord. Elijah and Elisha had real problems because they spoke out against the evil kings. “Your fathers? Tell me now which of the prophets did they not persecute?”
and they have slain those, which showed them before of the coming of the Just One ( Act 7:52 );
In other words, these prophets who were telling them of the coming of the Messiah, these true prophets of God, they had killed these prophets who had prophesied of the coming of the Just One, the Messiah.
of whom ye now have been now the betrayers and murderers ( Act 7:52 ):
“I mean, you’re worse than your fathers. They killed all of the prophets that came to them who were telling them of the coming of the Messiah. But you killed the Messiah!!” What a charge. “Because you were the betrayers and the murderers.”
You have rejected the law by the disposition of angels, you have not kept it ( Act 7:53 ).
He was accused of speaking against the law of Moses. He said, “Look, you haven’t kept it; you’ve rejected it.”
When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God ( Act 7:54-56 ).
“Your fathers rejected Joseph; God made him a ruler. Your fathers rejected Moses; God made him the ruler. You have rejected Jesus Christ; God has made Him the ruler. I see heavens opened and I see the Son of Man standing there on the right hand of God.”
Jesus, in the book of Revelation, promises to those overcomers in the church of Thyatira, that they will be granted to sit on their thrones in His kingdom. Stephen sees Jesus, not sitting on the throne next to the Father, but he sees Him standing. And I believe that it is significant. I believe that Jesus has stood to receive into heaven His first martyr in the early church. The first one of millions who would give their lives for the testimony of Jesus Christ. And I believe that as Stephen was ready to be martyred, the Lord stood to receive him into that heavenly kingdom. “The Son of Man is standing there at the right hand of God.”
And they cried out with a loud voice, they stopped their ears, [they did not want to hear the truth], and they ran upon him with one accord, and they threw him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, [and as they were stoning him] he called upon God, saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep ( Act 7:57-60 ).
We find in the martyrdom of Stephen much of what we saw in the crucifixion of Jesus, in that number one, he was praying for those who were committing the crime.
You remember Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” Stephen is saying, “Father, don’t lay this sin to their charge.” Praying for the persecutors. As Jesus said, “Pray for those who despitefully use you.” And thus, Stephen, following the example of Jesus.
Secondly, we find that Stephen here is commending his spirit to God, even as Jesus, when on the cross, commended His Spirit unto God. And so, following the example of the Lord in His crucifixion, Stephen is now martyred and the first blood of the church has been shed. And as the result, they did not silence the witness of the church; they only spread the witness all over the place. For then began a great persecution against the church.
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Act 7:1. , the high priest) as the president.-, whether) The interrogation serves the convenience of (gives occasion to) the defence of Stephen against the charges of his adversaries. , then, has an appearance of fairness, and of expressing astonishment. This is the sum of the defence: I acknowledge the glory of GOD, revealed to the fathers, Act 7:2; the call of Moses,[45] Act 7:34-35; the majesty of the law, Act 7:8; Act 7:38; Act 7:44; the sanctity of the temple and of this place, Act 7:7, at the end, 45, 47. And indeed the law is more ancient than the temple: the promise, than the law. For GOD both gave and showed Himself gratuitously (of free grace) to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and their sons, as their GOD, Act 7:2-3; Act 7:9-10; Act 7:17-18; Act 7:32; Act 7:34; Act 7:45; and they also showed (rendered) faith and obedience to GOD, Act 7:4; Act 7:20-21; Act 7:23; especially in upholding the law, Act 7:8; and their claim to the land of promise, Act 7:16. Meanwhile GOD neither at the beginning, nor ever after, tied down His presence to this one spot: for even before the erection of the temple, and outside of the favoured land, He vouchsafed (permitted) Himself to be known and worshipped, Act 7:2; Act 7:9; Act 7:33; Act 7:44; and that the fathers and their posterity were not utterly restricted (fixed down) to this place, their numerous wanderings show, Act 7:4-5; Act 7:14; Act 7:29; Act 7:44; and exile in Babylon, Act 7:43, at the end. But ye always were evil, Act 7:9; ye resisted Moses, Act 7:25-26; Act 7:39-40; ye turned away from the land of promise, Act 7:39; ye abandoned God, Act 7:40-41; ye worshipped the temple superstitiously, Act 7:48; ye resisted GOD and His Spirit, Act 7:51; ye have slain the prophets and Messiah Himself, Act 7:52; ye have not kept the law, Act 7:53. Therefore GOD is not bound to you, much less to you alone. The histories of former events are wont to be commemorated in Scripture, the fact being traced up from its beginnings: but in such a way that, according to the exigency of the purpose in hand, some things are rapidly gone through, others are omitted: see ch. Act 13:17-18; Deu 33:2-3; Psa 106:7-8 : Eze 20:5-6; Hab 3:3-4; Heb 11:3-4, where faith is treated of, as here, unbelief. And most opportunely at this solemn time and place, whereas (whilst) the apostles were rather bearing witness as to Jesus Christ, Stephen makes a recapitulation of ancient events: which also affords a specimen of how one ought wisely to draw out the kernel (to give the salient points) of an Ecclesiastical History. Wherefore by no means ought we to assent to Erasmus and others, who think that many things in this speech have not very much pertinency to the matter in hand which Stephen undertook. In truth, this testimony is most worthy of the fulness of the Spirit, as also of the faith and power which were in him; and although he does not put his enunciations in direct contradiction to the enunciations of his adversaries, yet he answers to all the charges with power. Nor can it be doubted but that Stephen, after that he had cleared up the events of the past and present, would have introduced (inferred) something as to the future, viz. the destruction of the temple, the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and the punishment of the people (with which comp. Act 7:43, at the end); and moreover, more at large, as to Jesus being the true Messiah (with which comp. Act 7:37), had not his speech been interrupted by the cries of the Jews vehemently clamouring against him (as the same Erasmus appropriately suggests). This is the only lengthened speech in this book, delivered by a witness of Christ who was not an apostle; a precious sample of the power of the Spirit.
[45] Note, the Italics throughout refer to the very words of their charge, ch. Act 7:11; Act 7:13-14.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Act 7:1-53
STEPHENS DEFENSE
Act 7:1-53
1 And the high priest said,-Stephens defense, at first view, is a condensed outline of Jewish history from the call of Abraham to the temple. It will be observed that in all the prominent periods of their history God did not confine himself to the Holy Land, nor to the temple; he appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia, to Joseph and Israel in Egypt, to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai; hence, Gods glorious appearings to their fathers were outside of the land of Canaan, and before the temple had an existence. The high priest presided over the Sanhedrin; the council had felt uneasy for some time, as the history of the church reveals; its members had felt for a while quite satisfied on the death of Jesus, but when his resurrection was preached and proved so conclusively by the testimony of the apostles, and when the church had multiplied in such great numbers, the Sanhedrin now was most uncomfortable. The high priest asked Stephen with regard to the charges that the council made against him: Are these things so ? This is mild language, more so than that addressed to Christ. (Mat 26:62.) His question to Stephen was equivalent to the question: Guilty or not guilty? This gave Stephen the opportunity to make his defense.
2 Brethren and fathers, hearken:-Stephen addressed the council in a very respectful way; he included the bystanders as brethren, and the council as fathers. Paul made a similar address. (Act 22:1.) The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham before he dwelt in Haran. Stephen begins by calling Abraham our Father, and the narrative proceeds to set forth the successive steps of Gods dealing toward them under the Abra- hamic covenant. No vision is recorded in the Old Testament of Gods appearance to Abraham in Mesopotamia, but it is implied, as it is said that God brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees. (Gen 11:31 Gen 15:7; Neh 9:7.) In Gen 12:1, Abram is said to have been called after he dwelt in Haran. Mesopotamia is the region between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates.
3 and said unto him, Get thee out of thy land,-Stephen here gives the divine instruction which is given in Gen 12:1. Abraham was called out of Ur with the special object of removing him away from the influence of his idolatrous surroundings. His people served other gods there. (Jos 24:2.) He was to leave his native land and his kinspeople and go into a land which Jehovah would show him. He was not told where he should go; and by faith Abraham . . . went out, not knowing whither he went. (Heb 11:8.)
4 Then came he out of the land-Abraham left Mesopotamia and took with him his father Terah and Lot; they dwelt in Haran about five years. Terah was seventy years old when Abram was born (Gen 11:26); and Abraham was seventy-five when he left Haran (Gen 12:4). Then Terah would have been one hundred forty-five years old at that time; but Terah lived to be two hundred five. (Gen 11:32.) Thus it is supposed that Terah must have lived about sixty years after Abraham started for Ca-naan. There are several explanations offered, as Stephen refers to Terahs spiritual death by relaxing into idolatry. However, the most satisfactory explanation is that critics wrongly assume Abram to be the eldest son of Terah, whereas he may have been the youngest, and Haran, who died in Ur, may have been the eldest, or even Nahor.
5 and he gave him none inheritance in it,-Abraham did not get the land for a living possession; it was promised to him for his heirs; he bought a burial place for his wife Sarah. (Gen 23:20 Gen 50:13.) This gave him no right of possession to live there. He buried his wife in the cave of Machpelah; this was his only possession. This promise was made to Abraham that his seed should inherit the land even before Abraham had an heir. (Gen 12:7 Gen 13:15-16.)
6 And God spake on this wise,-These promises were made to Abraham while he had no child, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land. This sojourn should result in their bondage and evil treatment for four hundred years. It was Gods plan to delay the fulfillment of the promise. The four hundred years may be stated in round numbers as in Exo 12:40-41. Paul says that the law came four hundred thirty years after the promise (Gal 3:17); so that the four hundred thirty years of Exo 12:40 probably included the patriarchs residence in Canaan (Gen 15:13-14; Exo 3:12).
7 And the nation to which they shall be in bondage-This nation was Egypt. God said that he would judge this nation, and this was done when he told Moses from the burning bush that Israel should come out of Egypt and serve him in this place, meaning Mount Horeb. Thus the council was reminded that Israel was to worship Jehovah in Sinai, and not alone in the temple, nor alone in Canaan.
8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision:-The covenant of circumcision was the covenant that God made with Abraham to give his posterity this land. The seal or sign of this covenant was circumcision; it was the covenant marked by circumcision. (Gen 17:9-14; Rom 4:11.) The covenant of circumcision was given the year before Isaac was born. (Gen 17:21.) The eighth day-each male child should be circumcised on the eighth day. Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs, or sons of Jacob, were circumcised.
9 And the patriarchs, moved with jealousy against Joseph,-Jealousy here comes from the original zelosantes, which means to burn or boil with zeal, and then with envy. (Act 5:17.) The brothers of Joseph were excited to envy against him because of Jacobs partiality toward him. (Gen 37:3-4.) They sold him into Egypt. (Gen 37:25-28.) However, God was with him. (Gen 39:2 Gen 39:21.) Stephen is merely giving an outline of the story which occupies much space in Genesis.
10 and delivered him out of all his afflictions,-For a record of this, see Gen 41:38-45 Gen 41:54. God was with him in all of his afflictions in Egypt, and finally elevated him before Pharaoh king of Egypt. He was finally made governor over Egypt and all of Pharaohs house. Pharaoh is not a name of a king, but a title, the Egyptian title meaning a great house.
11 Now there came a famine over all Egypt-Here another stage in the history is noted as part of the same plan of providential development in the case of the covenant people. The famine is recorded in Gen 41:54; it was very severe. Stephen reaches the climax by saying, Our fathers found no sustenance. Notice that Stephen continues to speak of our fathers, which identifies him with the council and all who were present. Sustenance is from the original chortasmata, and means to feed with grass or herbs. In the New Testament it includes food for men and animals, but in Gen 24:25 Gen 24:32 it is fodder for the cattle, a first necessity for owners of herds of cattle.
12 But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt,- Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt. The Greek for corn or grain is sitia, and means grain, such as wheat and barley, but not our maize or Indian corn; it is an old word for provisions, victuals. Jacob remained in Canaan while ten of his sons went into Egypt the first time.
13 And at the second time Joseph was made known-While Joseph was ruler over Egypt the famine occurred; he controlled the distribution of the grain; he had been in Egypt many years and his brothers did not recognize him and he did not make himself known unto them the first time. The second time Joseph was made known to his brethren, and Pharaoh assisted Joseph in making arrangements to bring his father into Egypt.
14 And Joseph sent, and called to him Jacob-Gen 45:17-21 gives an account of Josephs sending for his father; Jacob, with all of his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls, went down into Egypt. Stephen counts some grandchildren of Joseph and so makes it seventy-five, whereas Gen 46:26 has sixty-six, and then the next verse makes it seventy, including Jacob and Joseph with his two sons.
15-16 And Jacob went down into Egypt;-Jacob went into Egypt and lived there seventeen years and died; his body was brought out of Egypt and buried in the cave of Machpelah, where Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah were buried, and where he had buried Leah. Abraham had bought the cave of Machpelah as a burying place from Ephron the Hittite at Hebron (Gen 23:16); while Jacob bought a field from the sons of Hamor at Shechem (Gen 33:19; Jos 24:32). Abraham had built an altar at Shechem when he entered Canaan. (Gen 12:6-7.)
17-18 But as the time of the promise drew nigh-The promise here referred to may be that made to Abraham in Gen 12:7, Unto thy seed will I give this land; or it may refer to the one recorded in Gen 15:16, And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again. The people grew and multiplied in Egypt, and prospered until there arose another king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph. This Pharaoh did not remember with gratitude nor acknowledge Egypts obligation to Joseph. Stephen may have quoted from Exo 1:8 at this point.
19 The same dealt craftily with our race,-Dealt craftily is from the Greek katasophizomai, which means to make wise, to become wise, then to play the sophist; however, in the New Testament it is used to mean to use fraud, craft, deceit. Pharaoh required the children of Israel to cast out their babes to the end they might not live. It seems that Pharaoh, besides the command to cast every infant son into the river Nile, treated the Hebrews with such rigor that, through dread of training up any children to endure their own hard lot, they in some instances abandoned their daughters also to death. The purpose and plan of this king was to keep the nation of Israel from multiplying and growing stronger; hence, he required the parents to abandon their children and let them die. (Exo 2:2-3.) Pharaoh was afraid that the Israelites would multiply so fast and become so strong that they would rebel against the Egyptian king.
20 At which season Moses was born,-Amram of the tribe of Levi and the family of Kohath married Jochebed and had at least two children before Moses was born, Miriam and Aaron. It is not known whether these children were born before the kings decree was issued; but it is known that Moses was born while this decree was in force and his mother, Jochebed, refused to obey the kings orders and preserved Moses because he was exceeding fair. He was nourished at home for three months in defiance of the new Pharaohs orders.
21 and when he was cast out,-Jochebed, after nourishing him for three months in her own house, made preparations for him to be found by Pharaohs daughter with the hope that she would spare the child. Pharaohs daughter came down and found the child and nourished him for her own son. Stephen had been accused of blaspheming Moses; he refutes the charge by reverently rehearsing the history of Moses, and also shows how God guarded all these changes; this emphasized the proof that his providential care would now, as in the past, overrule all the changes to advance his kingdom.
22 And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom-Moses was mighty in his words and works, which refers to his later life; he said of himself: Oh, Lord, I am not eloquent, … I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. (Exo 4:10.) The priestly caste in Egypt was noted for its knowledge of science, astronomy, medicine, and mathematics; this reputation was proverbial. (1Ki 4:30.) It was said of Jesus that he was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people. (Luk 24:19.) Jesus was a prophet like unto Moses. (Act 3:22.)
23 But when he was well-nigh forty years old,-Moses was forty years old at this time; Exo 2:11 says that when Moses was grown up, and Heb 11:24 says when he was grown up. The Jews understood this to mean forty years which he had spent as the son of Pharaohs daughter; then he was in Midian forty years; then forty years in the wilderness, making his age one hundred twenty years. It came into his heart to visit his brethren at this time when he was forty years of age; we are not told how he was impressed with the thought of delivering his brethren from Egyptian bondage at this time.
24-25 And seeing one of them suffer wrong,-While down in the land of Goshen visiting his brethren he saw an Egyptian, presumably a taskmaster, smiting one of his brethren, and Moses slew the Egyptian and hid his body in the sand. (Exo 2:12.) He may not have intended to kill the Egyptian, but having done so, he concealed his body in the sand. He went out the second day and two men of the Hebrews . . . striving together (Exo 2:13), and rebuked the one that was in the wrong. He thought that his brethren understood that God by his hand was giving . . . deliverance to the children of Israel. They did not understand; neither is there anything said in Exodus about his intentions at this time. God intended to deliver them by the hand of Moses, but Moses was not prepared at this time to become their deliverer; neither was this the way that God would deliver them.
26 And the day following he appeared unto them as they strove,-Here Moses attempted to establish peace between two of his brethren, but they did not understand his intentions. Stephen knew that they were familiar with the history. As they were of the same race, and both under oppression, it was not in harmony with the relationship for them to be fighting among themselves; some think that there is implied here the fact that they should reserve their strength to contend together against the common enemy.
27-28 But he that did his neighbor wrong-The one that was in the wrong resented the correction and reminded him what he had done to the Egyptian. A record of this is found in Exo 2:14. It does not appear that Moses assumed any authority over them; it seems that they should have understood what Moses was doing and should have been in sympathy with him. However, Moses saw that what he had done to the Egyptian was known, and that his brethren would not accept him as their deliverer.
29 And Moses fled at this saying,-When Pharaoh heard what Moses had done, he sought to slay Moses. (Exo 2:15.) Moses became a sojourner in the land of Midian. Midian was a son of Abraham by Keturah. (Gen 25:2.) His descendants occupied the region extending from the eastern shore of the Gulf of Akabah to the borders of Moab on the one side, and to the vicinity of Sinai on the other. Here he married Zipporah, daughter of Jethro, the priest of Midian. (Exo 2:16-22.) He had two sons by Zipporah, born while he was in Midian.
30 And when forty years were fulfilled,-Moses sojourned in Midian in the region about Mount Sinai forty years. While there, an angel appeared to him and summoned him by the signal of a flame of fire in a bush. This corresponds with the statement in Exo 7:7 that Moses was eighty years old when he appeared before Pharaoh, and one hundred twenty years old when he died. (Deu 29:5 Deu 31:2 Deu 34:7.) The angel appeared to Moses at the end of the forty years sojourn in the land of Midian.
31-32 And when Moses saw it,-A flame of fire in a bush would not excite wonder; but if the flame kept on burning and the bush was not consumed, it would excite attention. (Exo 3:2.) Moses approached the bush to discover the cause of this wonder. When he did so, a voice was heard, saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. This is the way that God called him; Moses thus further becomes acquainted with God. When Moses heard the voice, he trembled, and durst not behold. It was a fearful thing to stand in the presence of God. The angel here is termed Jehovah himself; the angel was a messenger of Jehovah.
33 And the Lord said unto him,-Jehovah told Moses to take off his shoes as he was standing on holy ground; Jehovah was represented there by the angel and the bush that was aflame. Moses was in the presence of God; hence, he should remove his sandals. It was considered an act of reverence to remove the shoes; this is still considered an act of reverence in the eastern country. We remove the hat as an act of respect and reverence. They removed their sandals.
34 I have surely seen the affliction of my people-This is what Jehovah said to Moses as Moses stood there in reverence for the presence of Jehovah. (Exo 3:7.) God had seen the affliction of his people; he saw how they were treated by the Egyptians. He had foretold this suffering. (Genesis 17; Neh 9:9; Psa 106:44-45; Isa 63:7-14.) Here Moses is directed as a leader to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage. Stephen is honoring Moses in all of the history that he recites.
35 This Moses whom they refused, saying,-Here Stephen emphasizes that this Moses who was rejected forty years previous to this time now has the command to go back to Egypt and deliver Israel from bondage. Many think that he was not commissioned the first time to deliver Israel. The council must have seen the parallel suggested in Stephen’s words; their fathers had rejected Moses, yet God sent him; so they rejected Jesus, but God sent him to deliver them. Moses is called here a deliverer; he is also called a ruler. There is a deadly parallel between Moses and Christ that the Sanhedrin must see; they must also see that they are doing to Christ and his disciples just what was done to Moses. Moses was ruler, lawgiver, deliverer, and prophet; Christ was all this to the people, but they rejected him. Moses was encouraged and supported by the angel which represented the presence of God.
36 This man led them forth, having wrought wonders-Moses and Aaron went before Pharaoh and wrought miracles; the ten plagues brought on Egypt were among the wonders and signs which Moses wrought in Egypt; but not all of these wonders and signs were done in Egypt. Some of them were in the Red sea, and for forty years in the wilderness. Though rejected, Moses delivered the afflicted Israelites; so Christ wrought many wonders and signs among the people, yet he was rejected and crucified. Again, they must see the point in Stephens recital of this history.
37 This is that Moses, who said-After reciting the history of Moses up to this point, Stephen now tells the council that Moses said: A prophet shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me. Peter had quoted this same prophecy (Act 3:22-23) when speaking in the temple, and applied it to Christ. The Sanhedrin must have been familiar with the application of this prophecy to Christ. Stephen now reminds the council that Moses himself declared that at some future time God would raise up a great prophet like unto Moses. This Moses is used five times here in Stephens speech. (Verses 35, 36, 37, 38, 40.) Stephens purpose is to show that this Moses whom he honored had predicted the Messiah as a prophet like himself, and that this fulfillment was to be found in Jesus of Nazareth. Hence, they are opposing Moses, and he is loyal to Moses; but they, in rebellion to Moses, were falsely accusing Stephen.
38 This is he that was in the church in the wilderness-This prophecy is found in Psa 22:22; there it is assembly; it is also quoted in Heb 2:12, and is there translated congregation; here in Stephens speech it is translated church. It is the same Greek word, ekklesiai, and is better translated congregation. Moses is here represented as receiving the law from an angel, as in Heb 2:2; Gal 3:19, and so was a mediator between the angel and the people; but Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant. (Heb 8:6.) Exodus does not speak of an angel; there Moses received the law from Jehovah. Living oracles means life-giving oracles, divine utterances. (Rom 3:2; Heb 5:12; 1Pe 4:11.) Moses was with the congregation and with the angel on Mount Sinai, where the law, called lively or living oracles, literally living words, was given.
39-40 to whom our fathers would not be obedient,-At Mount Sinai, while Moses was up in the mountain for forty days, the people asked Aaron to make a calf of gold for them to worship ; they did not know what had become of Moses. They acknowledged that he had brought them out of Egypt. Here again is a contrast between the way Israel treated Moses and the honor God placed upon him; Israel refused Moses as a deliverer, and wanted to go back to the bondage of Egypt. They turned back in their hearts unto Egypt, but did not really go back into Egypt. They did go back to the idolatry of Egypt in calling for Aaron to make them gods. (Exo 16:3 Exo 17:3; Num 14:4; Eze 20:8.) The pillar of cloud and of fire went before the Israelites as a symbol of Gods presence (Exo 13:21-22; Num 10:34 Num 10:36; Neh 9:12), but they wished a symbolic representation of Jehovah more striking to their sensual hearts, so long accustomed as they had been to the image worship of the Egyptians. They spoke language of contempt about Moses. They did not know what had become of him, and perhaps did not care.
41 And they made a calf in those days,-This verse describes their idolatrous worship. Aaron made the calf and also the people made it. (Exo 32:3 Exo 32:35.) Stephen calls it the idol. The people said it was their way of worshiping Jehovah. It is thought that they made a calf of gold because they were accustomed to seeing the Egyptians worship the bull Apis at Memphis as the symbol of Osiris, the sun. The Egyptians had another sacred bull, Mnevis, at Heliopolis. The Israelites rejoiced in the works of their hands. They rejoiced in the calf they had made, as if it were Jehovah whom they professed to worship. Idolatry is so foolish! (Isa 44:9-20.)
42-43 But God turned, and gave them up-The Israelites forsook God, and he gave them up to their idolatrous ways after pleading with them and warning them for many long years. Gave them up is from the original paredoken; this same form occurs three times like clods on a coffin in a grave in Rom 1:24 Rom 1:26 Rom 1:28, where Paul speaks of God giving the heathen up to their lusts. They worshiped the host of heaven (Deu 17:3; 2Ki 17:16 2Ki 21:3; 2Ch 33:3 2Ch 33:5 ; Jer 8:2 Jer 19:13); which means the sun, moon, and stars. This quotation is from Amo 5:25-27. Stephen makes application here in such a way as to impress upon the Sanhedrin the wickedness of the people and Gods giving them up to follow their own idolatrous hearts. Tabernacle of Moloch is the place of worshiping Moloch; Moloch was the god of the Amorites, to whom children were offered as live sacrifices; it was an image with a head of an ox with arms outstretched in which children were placed, and underneath fire was placed so as to consume the offering. The star of the god Rephan is supposed to be the star Saturn to which the Egyptians and others gave worship. Israel turned away from Jehovah and turned to these idols. For these sins the Israelites were to be carried beyond Babylon, or as some versions read, beyond Damascus; however, beyond Damascus to the Jewish mind meant Babylon.
44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of the testimony-The tabernacle of the testimony has reference to the tabernacle in the wilderness. (Exo 25:22 Exo 38:21.) The Ten Commandments were placed in the ark of the covenant, and the ark was kept in the most holy place. Stephen seems to pass on from the conduct of Israel to his other argument that God is not necessarily worshiped in a particular spot. Moses had been called up in the mountain and had been given a pattern of the tabernacle, and even warned: See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount. (Heb 8:5.) So the place of worship was at the tabernacle, but as the tabernacle was moved around, the place of worship changed. Stephen is preparing to show that they have changed from the religious customs of Moses themselves.
45-46 Which also our fathers, in their turn,-The tabernacle with all of its equipment was built in the wilderness, and at the death of Moses, after their sojourn of forty years in the wilderness, Joshua became the leader and led the Israelites across the river Jordan into the promised land. The tabernacle was brought across the river Jordan and used in the land of Canaan for a long period. They continued to use the tabernacle until the days of David; King David made preparation to build a permanent house for Jehovah. He was not permitted to build this house.
47 But Solomon built him a house.-David had found favor with Jehovah; he was raised to sit on the throne and made king over Israel; God established Davids kingdom (1Sa 13:14; Psa 89:20-37); but he would not permit David to build the temple (2Sa 7:2 ff). Davids son Solomon was permitted to build the temple; David gave to Solomon material that he had collected for the temple, and also the pattern. Solomon then built the temple (2Sa 7:2 ff.). Davids son Solomon was permitted to built and ready for use.
48-50 Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses-Though Solomon built a magnificent house, yet he did not suppose that Jehovah could be circumscribed within the walls of the temple. Jehovah God dwelleth not in houses made with hands. These were the words of Solomon when the temple was dedicated. (1Ki 8:26-27 1Ki 8:43; 2Ch 6:18 2Ch 6:39.) Stephen here quoted from Isa 66:1-2, which emphasizes that Jehovah cannot be confined to a material building, but his throne is in heaven and the earth is his footstool; hence, no house could contain him. No house could be large enough and magnificent enough to contain him who made the universe. The argument seems to be that if the universe which God made could not contain him, how much less this temple which had been made by the hands of man. This is what Solomon said in his prayer at the dedication of the temple. (2Ch 6:18.)
51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart-It is thought that Stephen was interrupted at this point; hence, the turn that his address takes. Stiffnecked is from sklerotracheloi, which is a compound word and means that they were hard in neck; that they would not bow the neck to Jehovah; they were stubborn. Uncircumcised in heart and ears means that they were not willing to believe or obey in their hearts; neither were they willing to hear with their ears. Circumcision was a sign that they submitted to God; hence, uncircumcised in heart would mean that in heart they would not submit to God, and therefore were not Gods people. Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; they resisted the Holy Spirit by rejecting the words that the Holy Spirit spoke through Stephen to them. Resist is from the Greek antipiptete, which means to fall against, to rush against. This is the only place that it is used in the New Testament, but it is used in the Old Testament which is here quoted. (Num 27:14.) Hence, the meaning is that they had fallen against the Holy Spirit as one would against an enemy. Stephen had completed his historical argument and he now makes an application of it.
52-53 Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?-There is an implied charge here that they had persecuted all of the prophets, and that they were still persecuting the disciples of Jesus. This was the same spirit that their fathers had in persecuting the prophets. He simply charges them as possessing the same evil spirit that the fathers had when they persecuted the prophets and killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One. The prophets that foretold of Christ were persecuted and killed; hence, when the Righteous One came as a fulfillment of those prophecies, they continued to exercise the spirit of persecution and destroyed him. Stephen becomes more pointed in his application and says: Of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers. This was a fearful indictment against the council and all who sympathized with the council. Stephens accusation here is so fearful that the Sanhedrin will not let it pass. He further states that they had received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not. This has reference to the law of Moses; the one whom they had charged Stephen with blaspheming. Yet they were blaspheming Moses and the law by persecuting the disciples of Christ. Instead of trying Stephen, Stephen put the Sanhedrin on trial. Four thoughts stand out in this address of Stephen; it is well to note the lines of argument that he has presented before leaving his address. The first thought is that Gods dealings with his people showed continual progress; the end was not reached by a single leap, but by development. As proof of this he recited the story of Abraham, to.whom the land was promised; he did not reach the promised land until some years after he was called, and he did not get the covenant of circumcision till later. The second thought is that the temple is not exclusively holy; he makes this stand out so clearly that his hearers could not fail to get it. God had appeared to Abraham in a heathen land, in Mesopotamia; Joseph had his entire glorious career in Egypt; Jacob, because of the famine, had gone down into Egypt. In another heathen land Moses found God. The signs and wonders were done in Egypt, in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness. The law was given from Mount Sinai, another foreign country. The third thought showed the long-suffering of God and his many mercies, though the people had gone into idolatry. Joseph was ill-treated by his brethren; their rejection of Joseph was a parallel to the rejection of Christ by the Jews. They rebelled against Moses, and in the same way they had rebelled against Christ who was the Messiah and the one who fulfilled the prophecies. The fourth point was that he showed the falsity of the charge that they had made against him by quoting so frequently from Moses and the prophets. In a burst of impassioned words he charges the council and the race of Jews with its long-continued crime, its murder of the Righteous One, and its outrage of the law given by angels.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The charge against Stephen was that he had spoken against the Temple and the Law. His reply consisted of a masterly review of the history of the nation from the calling of Abraham to the rejection of Jesus. He was careful not to speak disrespectfully of the Temple, notwithstanding that he reminded them that the history of the nation was of a God-governed people long before the Temple was erected. Thus reviewing the past, he declared the blindness and hardness of heart of the people, who in the old days, had turned to false gods.
Nothing can be clearer from a study of this defense than the new spiritual concept which had taken possession of these early Christians. The Temple and all its ceremonial were shown to be but incidental, and a passing method in the divine movement.
Such argument and directness could produce but one result. The people’s rage was stirred against him. The picture of the martyrdom of Stephen is full of exquisite beauty. A vision of his Lord was granted to him in the hour of his suffering and death. He saw His Lord, not sitting, but standing, thus fulfilling one aspect of His great priesthood. This vision of Christ seems to have shut out the brutality of the mob from the eyes of Stephen, and he saw the mob only in its folly and sin. Committing himself to his Saviour, Stephen prayed that the sin of his murder might not be laid to the charge of his enemies.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Stephens Defense: Gods First Called Ones
Act 7:1-13
There are several touches in this eloquent apology which deserve notice. Act 7:2 : The God of glory. This chapter begins and ends with glory. See Act 7:55. Note that God appeared to Abraham in Ur, before he had come to Haran at the divine bidding. It is interesting to have this discrimination between the different appearances of God to the patriarch. Act 7:3 : We often have to leave our land before God shows us another. Act 7:6 : Gods promises lighted up the weary bondage of Egypt. Act 7:10 : It is God that delivers us out of our afflictions and gives us favor with people.
The drift of the whole speech, which must be borne in mind as we read it, is that again and again the Chosen People had rejected their God-sent deliverers and prophets, and had taken their own evil courses. The rejection of the Savior was only a parallel to that of Joseph by his brethren, and that of Moses by the nation. Israel had always been stiffnecked and froward, and ought not history to warn Stephens hearers against taking a similar attitude towards Jesus of Nazareth? Might not Jesus prove to be as great a blessing in that generation as Joseph or Moses had been in his? The parallel will be complete when Jesus returns in power and glory.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
At the close of the sixth chapter we saw Stephen standing before the Jewish Sanhedrin, where he was called into account for preaching Jesus crucified and raised again from the dead. One might have thought that his glorious face, lit up as it was by the light of Heaven, would have softened the hearts of those who sat in judgment upon him, but it seemed to have the opposite effect. It stirred up more hatred against him and against the gospel he preached.
The Promise to Abraham (Act 7:1-8)
The high priest put the question to Stephen, Are these things so? That is, Did you really say that Jesus of Nazareth was to destroy the temple and change the customs Moses delivered?
In Acts 7 we have Stephens defense. We might say we see Stephen led by the God of glory up to the glory of God. You will notice verse 55, But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God.
He begins his defense by relating Gods dealing with their great progenitor Abraham; how God led Abraham out of the land of the Chaldeans and brought him into the land of Canaan, and definitely promised the land of Canaan to him and to his seed after him. But Abraham died without possessing any of it, except the grave in which he buried his wife Sarah. Yet Stephen had the confidence that eventually Abraham would possess the land of Canaan, which God promised to him. It is true he has passed on to a better country, for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. But nevertheless, the promise remains, that land shall yet be the dwelling place of the seed of Abraham.
The Egyptian Bondage (Act 7:9-16)
In this section our attention is drawn to some remarkable facts. Stephen showed how God permitted the people of Israel to go down to Egypt, at first to be favorably received and then to fall into sad bondage and slavery. He reminded his hearers how they were eventually delivered. But here he emphasized the patriarchs relationship to their brother Joseph. They hated Joseph because he was their fathers favorite. He was hated also for his dreams that told of his coming glory, and so they sold him to the Ishmaelites who carried him down into Egypt.
Joseph is a type of Christ. He was rejected at first, but the day came when his brethren bowed before him and recognized his authority. The story of Joseph pictures Christs first and second advent. Our blessed Savior when He came the first time was rejected. His own people spurned Him, refused Him, and the Gentiles put Him to death on Calvarys cross. But that is not the end of the story. He is coming again and will be manifested in power. The day will come when His own earthly people will bow before His feet and recognize Him as their Brother, Jesus who is also their Savior and their Lord.
The Wilderness Experience (Act 7:17-50)
Stephen proceeded to tell of the deliverance from Egypt through Moses, who was rejected the first time and then later received. It is easy to follow the logic in Stephens mind. He is pointing out to the people of Israel that invariably in their history they rejected their deliverer the first time and accepted him the second time. The story of Moses is somewhat different. Moses life divides into three sections of forty years each. He spent forty years learning the wisdom of the Egyptians and forty years unlearning it and learning instead the wisdom of God. After that, he was forty years leading the Israelites through the wilderness until they came to the borders of the land of Canaan.
Stephen emphasized that from the beginning there was a great love in Moses heart for his people and he longed to see them freed from bondage. He went out and tried to help alleviate their suffering and distress, but they did not want his help. They said, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? They rejected him and he had to leave Egypt and go to the far side of the desert, where he remained for forty years. In the meantime his people were enduring greater and greater suffering, all because they had rejected their redeemer.
What a picture of Israel down through the centuries! God raised up Jesus in accordance with His prophecy by Moses: The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken (Deu 18:15). And so Jesus came, to preach the gospel to the poorto preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised. But they did not understand; they spurned Him and said, We will not have this man to reign over us. We have no king but Caesar. So God took Him up on high. We read in Hos 5:15: I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offense, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. Has any nation suffered as Israel has suffered? Has any nation endured as much? In Lam 1:12 we read: Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the Lord hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger.
You may ask, Why this affliction-why has God permitted this suffering to come upon the people with whom He chose to enter into covenant relationship? It is because in the time of His visitation, when the Deliverer came, they spurned Him. Israel had to stay forty years longer in Egypt because they did not recognize Moses as their deliverer, but in due time they did receive him. Forty years in Scripture is the full period of testing and trial.
God met Moses in the wilderness at Mount Horeb by the burning bush-in itself a symbol of the nation of Israel. The bush burned continuously but was not consumed; and Israel has suffered continuously but remains today. And Israel will remain when the last of the Hitlers and anti-Semites have passed away because God has said, This people have I formed for myself. But when will they be brought into the place of blessing? When the great Prophet comes the second time, then they shall look upon me whom they pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn (Zec 12:10).
Stephen showed that Moses, in his rejection at first, and acceptance the second time, is a type of the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me: him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness [that is, the congregation of the Lord of old in the wilderness] with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt (Act 7:37-39).
Israels history down through the centuries has been that of forgetting God and turning to the ways of the Gentiles, all of which accounts for their continual suffering.
Egypt is a type of the world, and it is quite possible for Christians in their hearts to turn back to Egypt-the world-and not know what crucifixion with Christ means. Many are not able to say with Paul, God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world (Gal 6:14). It is one thing to recognize we are dead to the corrupt world, dead to the licentious world, dead to the vulgar world; it is quite another thing to recognize that the cross of Christ comes also between the believer and the esthetic world. A great many of us who are not tempted by the corruption of the world, fall under the spell of the culture and refinement of the world. We love the worlds songs, its plays, its art; the result being that our hearts are largely in the world instead of wrapped up in God Himself. We may learn a lesson from the experiences of Israel as we continue to read the charge Stephen gave.
The children of Israel said, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him (Act 7:40). You see, Moses had gone up into the holy mount to receive the tables of the covenant from God and they could not see him. They wanted a leader they could see. It is easier to walk by sight, than by faith. They made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven. He allowed them to sink into idolatry and experience the result of its dreadful corruption.
Stephen continued by quoting from the Old Testament prophet Amo 5:25-26:
O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon (Act 7:42-43).
The reason given here for the captivity in Babylon was that the people made the calf in the wilderness. Even in that distant past they cherished false gods and had never judged that sin. This is a solemn thought. Let us never forget: Sin never dies of old age! It goes on working like leprosy, until it is dealt with in the presence of God. They never judged that sin and it led them deeper and deeper into idolatry for which they were eventually driven into captivity.
Stephens Final Indictment (Act 7:51-60)
And so Stephen rehearsed the history of Israel up to the building of the temple by Solomon and showed how God all along had displayed His grace but they had been continuously rebellious against Him, Then he turned on the audience and cried, You are just like your fathers were! It took courage for Stephen to say this. It was like the prisoner putting the judge on the docket. There sat the leaders of Israel to judge him, but this devoted servant of God spoke the word that judged them! Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. What a tragic indictment that was, and how true it still is! God through the Holy Spirit has spoken to us as a people in many, many ways, but we have rejected His testimony, spurned His Word, and resisted the Holy Spirit. God give us grace to humble ourselves before we are broken in judgment. For we must either bow in penitence under the mighty hand of God or be humbled in the day when His judgments are poured out on us. Stephen continued:
Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One [that is, of the Lord Jesus]; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it (52-53).
There they stopped him. He hadnt finished; he had a great deal more to say. He doubtless intended to go on and present the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ, but they would hear no more. Cut to the heart, they ground their teeth in hatred of him.
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. This is very significant. We are told in the Epistle to the Hebrews that when Jesus had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; but here, as Stephen looked up, he saw the Lord standing. What does it mean? It is just as though the blessed Lord in His great compassion for Stephen had risen from His seat and was looking over the battlements of Heaven to strengthen and cheer the martyr down on earth. Stephen exclaimed, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. That revealing vision should have broken them down, brought them to repentance, and shown them they were fighting against their own best interests. Instead (so hardened were they in their sins), they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young mans feet, whose name was Saul.
Thus Saul comes into the picture. He was to take up the story that Stephen had to drop.
They stoned Stephen, as he called on the Lord, Receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. Oh, the love that filled that mans heart! Dont judge them for this. It was like the beloved Master saying, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
And with these words he fell asleep-and that is what death is to the Christian, falling asleep. The fear of death is gone,
[For Christ] also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage (Heb 2:14-15).
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Act 7:44
I. The wandering of the Israelites was all a parable. It was, if we may trust apostolic teachings, all a Divine shadow of that great invisible and spiritual society, the yet more mysterious Ecclesia, “the Church throughout all ages” on its mighty march through time, with all its attendant omens and prodigies,-for such is the Church everywhere, a witness in the wilderness; such, indeed, is the Church; such are all its varieties of ordinance. It is the perpetual remonstrance against the sufficiency of the seen and temporal; it is a perpetual witness for the unseen and eternal; it is a perpetual testimony for the existence of a spiritual perpetuity and continuity; it is a mysterious procession; infinite aspirations are infused in the soul of man. The tabernacle of the testimony is the story of the Church and the soul-a witness for faith. A world with no tabernacle of Divine testimony has a philosophy which only sees the worst, which goes on declaring its dreary monologue that this is the worst of all possible worlds, that sleep is better than waking, and death is better than sleep. In the presence of such thoughts, the sky shuts down upon us, there is no motive in life; as Emerson well says, “This low and hopeless spirit puts out the eyes, and such scepticism is slow suicide.”
II. The pulpit has been through all the fluctuating ages a tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness. The pulpit is like that ancient tabernacle of my text,-it rests, but it moves: it rests in the ancient truths it was instituted to announce. Christ is final; and, as has been truly said, “Christianity is a fixed quantity, not a fluxion, and Jesus Christ is all in all”; it is a spiritual universe; it has its immense and infinite announcements, which, like the definitions of mathematics and the numbers of arithmetic, are unchangeable and final-we cannot go beyond them. We need no new Messiah; we shall find no wiser teacher, no more sufficient Saviour in any time to come. Christianity is complete, like the round globe and the blue sky. In giving to us the principles of the ultimate law of morality, He has exhausted the moral world of its treasures when He proclaims God for our Father. But what an unlimited progress is there in men’s ideas and sentiments, and their application to religion; and should not the pulpit be the tabernacle of testimony to these, for the ideas of Christianity are progressive in the human mind? It is not the speculator but God Himself who goeth forth with our armies, who bids us to strike the tent and march forward to some spot where the future shall fulfil itself even as the past has been fulfilled.
E. Paxton Hood, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiii., p. 233
Act 7:47-50
The Temples of God.
Note:-
I. The physical creation. “Heaven is My throne; and earth is My footstool. Hath not My hand made these things?” These words refer directly to the material creation, and imply that God fashioned the heaven and the earth to be a temple to Himself, in which He might manifest His glory.
II. The second creation, or Judaism. God became nearer man in Judaism than in the material creation. He was pleased to concentrate the symbol of His presence in one special locality, first in the Tabernacle, afterwards in the Temple. The Temple on Moriah was not the goal, it was only a stage in the onward march of the Divine economies.
III. The third creation, or Christianity. Christianity is described in prophecy as a “stone cut out of the mountain without hands.” God’s proper templets holy humanity, and under the Christian dispensation He has found the temple He so earnestly coveted.
J. Cynddylan Jones, Studies in the Acts, p. 159.
References: Act 7:51.-Parker, City Temple, vol. iii., p. 445. Act 7:51-53.-S. A. Brooke, Sermons, p. 164. Act 7:54-60.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvi., p. 422. Act 7:55, Act 7:56. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii., No. 740; H. Melvill, Voices of the Year, vol. i., p. 58; E. M. Goulburn, Acts of the Deacons, p. 147.
Act 7:56
The Witnesses for the Glorified Son of Man.
I. When Stephen spoke the words of our text, the truth which he had been proclaiming in all his discourse, which he had perceived to be the subject and climax of all revelation, presented itself to him just as actually as any visible thing presents itself to the eye. It was not a doctrine of the Incarnation which he acknowledged in that hour-a mere doctrine would have stood him in little stead. It was a person who stood before him, a person upon whom he might call, in whom he might trust; he was sure that it was life and substance he was in contact with, not hard forms of the understanding. It was a Son of man on the right hand of God, an actual mediator between man and God, one in whom God could look well pleased upon man, in whom man could look up to God and be at peace. Was it not an opening of heaven which disclosed such a union of manhood with Godhead? Did not that opening of heaven foreshadow a shaking of all religions-of all polities upon earth-which stood on some other foundation than this?
II. St. Stephen’s witness is the witness which the Church of God is to bear upon earth. The true martyr-the martyr who deserves honour and reverence from men-bears that witness and no other. Religious bodies are wrong only in pretending that they have been faithful stewards of the Divine message of men; that their divisions, hatreds, persecutions, have not marred it, broken it, inverted it; that each has not often been used by the wisdom of God to bring forth some witness of it which the other has suppressed or mangled; that there has not been a cry rising out of the depths of the human heart-often a cry of bitter wailing and cursing against them all-which has also, if we interpret it according to the teachings of Scripture, the same significance. Judging according to human calculations, there never was a time when such men as Stephen were more demanded, or were less likely to appear. But we are not to judge according to human calculations. This is God’s own cause, and He will take care of it. In places of which we know nothing, by processes of education which we cannot guess, He may have been preparing His witnesses. They will speak with power to the hearts of men who need a Son of man. They will be sure, even when their own vision is weakest, that the heavens will one day be opened, and that the Son of man will be revealed to the whole universe at His Father’s right hand.
F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. v., p. 59.
References: Act 7:56-60.-T. de Witt Talmage, Christian World Pulpit, vol. viii., p. 56; E. M. Goulburn, Acts of the Deacons, p. 165. Act 7:57, Act 7:60.-Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iv., p. 428. Act 7:58.-Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes, Gospels and Acts, p. 186. Act 7:59.-J. Pulsford, Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 111; Parker, Cavendish Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 181.
Act 7:59-60
Note:-
I. The faith of Stephen. How was it manifested, and in what respect may we seek to imitate it? Now, I think we may say that as his faith was seen in every part of his trial, so most remarkably in the manner in which he faced death. It was seen in that upward looking of his soul to God in the hour of deepest suffering; it was proved by the cry which he then uttered, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” These words, spoken at such a time, must be regarded as the strongest evidence to the reality and soundness of Stephen’s faith. They show us that he endured as seeing Him who is invisible. Let us also be prepared beforehand. Let us try now and examine our faith. Do not expect to find comfort from it at the last, unless you have proved and tested it in the course and conduct of your common life. Calls for such proof are daily occurring. We have all periods of sorrow; we are all tried by many infirmities; we are all subject to the loss of health, and to the loss of friends. When such things happen unto us, then is the trial of our faith. Let us take them as sent for our good, our portion of the cross, and let us bear cheerfully our burden; ever amidst the present distress let our eye look steadfastly towards heaven.
II. The charity of Stephen. It was of that kind so commended by the Apostle; that which beareth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Martyr as he was, his death had not been that tranquil sleep in the Lord which now it is, had he carried with him to the grave one thought of harm, one feeling of revenge against his persecutors. But then, neither can our death be tranquil except on the same terms. It is not safe for any man to die at enmity with his fellow. Nay, more. It is not safe for any man to live at enmity with his fellow. The very charter by which we hold the promise of God’s pardon is that we pardon our brother his trespasses.
H. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, 4th series, p. 110.
The Martyrdom of Stephen.
I. The first question that we must ask ourselves in reading this story is, “What is the secret of all this meekness and of all this bravery? How came Stephen to be thus self-possessed before the frowning Sanhedrim, fearless amidst that excited multitude in his home-thrusts of truth, brave in the crisis of trial, forgiving at the moment of death?” Men are not born thus. As we mentally put ourselves into his circumstances, we feel that no physical hardihood, no endowment of natural bravery, could sustain us. There must have been some Divine bestowment, in order to secure this undaunted heroism and this supreme tenderness of love. Then, was it a miraculous gift, reserved for some specially commissioned and specially chosen man, or is it the common heritage of all mankind? These are questions that become interesting as we dwell upon the developments of holy character that are presented to us in the life of Stephen. The secret lies in the delineation of the man. He was “a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.” He did not leap into this character in a moment; he did not spring, fully armed, as Minerva is fabled to have sprung from the brain of Jupiter. There was no mystic charm by which the Graces clustered around him. He had faith, and that faith was the gift of God to him, as it is the gift of God to us. He had the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and that indwelling is promised to us, as to him, by the blood-shedding of our Surety and Saviour. The only difference between us and him is that he grasped the blessing with a holier boldness and lived habitually in a closer communion with God.
II. The lot of the Christian is, ordinarily, an inheritance of persecution. There was nothing in the character of Stephen to arouse any special hostility. He was reputed learned and honourable, he had refinement of manner, and as the Church’s almoner his office was benevolent and kind. But he was faithful, and his reproofs stung his adversaries to the quick. He was consistent, and his life was a perpetual rebuke to those who lived otherwise. He was unanswerable, and that was a crime too great to be forgiven, and so they stoned Stephen. And persecution has been the lot of the Church in all ages.
III. I gather thirdly from this subject that strength and grace are always given most liberally when they are most needed. With special and onerous duty there came to Stephen specially replenished supply. How it rushed in upon him when he needed it! He went into that fierce council unprepared; but how it came upon him-the grace, the strength, the manliness, the utterance-just as he required it, and lighting up, making him so translucent, so to speak, with glory, that, breaking through the serge and sackcloth of his humiliation, the inner glory mantled out upon the countenance as the morning mantles upon the sky! “As thy days, so shall thy strength be.”
IV. We gather from the narrative that death is not death to a believer in Jesus.
“Brutal oaths and frantic yells
And curses loud and deep”-
these were the lullaby that sang him to his dreamless slumber. But when God wills a man to sleep, it does not matter how much noise there is around him. “He giveth His beloved sleep.”
W. M. Punshon, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 385.
References: Act 7:59, Act 7:60.-P. Robertson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 179; J. C. Jones, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 385; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx., No. 1175; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. v., p. 31. Act 7:60.-Christian World Pulpit, vol. x., p. 148; C. J. Vaughan, Church of the First Days, vol. i., p. 261; Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 112. Acts 7-E. G. Gibson, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iv., p. 425; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 213. Act 8:1.-H. P. Liddon, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 366; Ibid., Thoughts on Present Church Troubles, p. 63; Ibid., Sermons, vol. ii., No. 1132. Act 8:2.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iii., p. 283; E. M. Goulburn, Acts of the Deacons, p. 189; Bishop Simpson, Sermons, p. 421.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTER 7
1. The Address of Stephen (Act 7:1-53).
2. The Martyrdom of Stephen (Act 7:54-60).
This is the largest chapter in this book and concludes the first section. Stephen is the chosen instrument to deliver the final testimony to the nation. He was not permitted to finish it.
We notice at once a marked difference between the previous preaching by the Apostle Peter and the address of Stephen. The testimony of Peter was marked on the day of Pentecost and at the other occasions by great brevity. Stephens address is the longest discourse reported in the New Testament. The name of Jesus is prominent in all the addresses of Peter. The fact that He was rejected by the people, crucified and that He rose from the dead, and the call to repentance, were the leading features of Peters preaching. Stephen does not mention the Name of Jesus at all, though he has the person of Christ and His rejection as the theme of his testimony. (The name Jesus appears in the A.V. in Act 7:45; but it should be Joshua instead.) At the close of his address he speaks of the Just One of whom they had become betrayers and murderers.
Stephen had been accused of speaking against Moses and against God, also against the temple and the law. These accusations he is asked to answer. What he declared before the council shows plainly that the accusations are utterly false. His speech is, therefore, partly apologetic; but it is also teaching, in that it shows certain truths from the historic events he cites. And before he finishes his testimony the accused becomes the accuser of the nation; the one to be judged becomes the judge. Indeed his whole testimony as he rapidly speaks of past history in his great and divinely arranged retrospect, is a most powerful testimony to the nation as well as against the nation.
The great address falls into the following sections: 1. Abrahams History (Act 7:2-8). 2. Joseph and his brethren (Act 7:9-16). 3. The Rejection of Moses. The rejected one became their Deliverer and Ruler (Act 7:17-38). 4. The Story of the nations apostasy and shame (Act 7:39-50. Then Stephen ceased his historical retrospect, he addressed them directly. The accused witness becomes the mouthpiece of the Judge, who pronounces the sentence upon the nation. This is found in Act 7:51-53. His martyrdom followed.
Three things are mentioned of this first martyr. He was full of the Holy Spirit; he looked steadfastly into heaven, seeing the glory of God; he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God.
This is the first manifestation of the glorified Christ, which we have on record. There are three of them only. He appeared here to Stephen. Then He appeared unto Saul, who consented unto Stephens death. Saul beheld Him in that Glory, brighter than the noon-day sun, and heard His voice. The last time the glorified Christ manifested Himself was to John in the island of Patmos. These three appearings of the glorified Christ present to our view the three aspects of His Second Coming. First He comes to welcome His own into His presence. He will arise and come into the air to meet His beloved co-heirs there. This is represented by the first appearing to Stephen, standing to receive him. Then Israel will behold Him, they who pierced Him will see Him, as Saul of Tarsus beheld the Lord. Then He will appear as John saw Him, the One who judges the earth in righteousness.
And now after this great and glorious vision, Stephen bears testimony to it. Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. He speaks of the Lord as Son of Man. This is the only time outside of the Gospel records that we find this title of the Lord (aside from the old Testament reference in Heb 2:1-18).
They stoned him and Stephen, the mighty witness and mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit, fell asleep.
Gods gracious offer and Christ had now been fully rejected by the nation. Stephen, who bore this last witness, is a striking evidence of the transforming power of Christ. How much like the Lord he was!
He was filled with the Spirit, full of faith and power, and like the Lord he did great wonders and miracles among the people. Like Christ, he was falsely accused of speaking against Moses, the law and the temple, and of being a blasphemer. They brought him before the same council and did what they did with the Lord, bringing false witnesses against him. He gave witness to the truth of the confession the Lord had given before the council, that He was to sit at the right hand of God. He beheld Him there. The Lord Jesus committed His spirit in the Fathers hands, and Stephen prayed that the Lord Jesus receive his spirit; and like the Lord he prayed for the forgiveness of his enemies. May the same power transform us all into the same image.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
21. A SERMON THAT COST A PREACHER HIS LIFE
Act 7:1-60
Stephen had been accused of speaking blasphemy against the law and the temple because he told the Jews that the Lord Jesus Christ had fulfilled all the types of the law and satisfied all its demands, and that all forms of carnal worship must be obliterated (Act 6:8-15; Joh 4:23-24; Col 2:8-23). In Acts 7 the Holy Spirit has preserved a transcript of Stephen’s last sermon, a sermon preached to the sanhedrin, a sermon that cost him his life. What did Stephen preach that so greatly enraged these religious leaders? These men were known to be tolerant and compromising with one another. That is how they held their “denomination” together. But when Stephen had finished his sermon they stoned him to death! Why? What did he say to infuriate them so?
IMPLIED THROUGHOUT STEPHEN’S SERMON IS THE DOCTRINE OF GOD’S ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY IN PROVIDENCE. Beginning with the call of Abraham, Stephen showed how that everything in the history of the Old Testament pointed to Christ and was fulfilled by him. He demonstrated how that God gradually unfolds and accomplishes his sovereign purpose of redemption and grace in providence.
THE LORD OUR GOD IS A GOD OF PURPOSE (Isa 14:26; Rom 8:28; Rom 9:11; Eph 1:11; Eph 3:11; 2Ti 1:9). His purpose is good, wise, and full of grace. It includes all things. Nothing takes God by surprise. His purpose in all things is the spiritual, eternal good of his elect and the glory of his own great name. His purpose is fixed, unalterable, and immutable (Isa 46:9-11). It cannot be changed, thwarted, or overturned. Therefore “we know that all things work together for good to them that love God to them who are the called according to his purpose!” If God’s eternal purpose could be altered to any degree, then no promises, prophecies, or threats recorded in the Bible could be believed. We can trust God only to the extent that we recognize his immutability. We can believe the Scriptures only to the extent that we recognize the universality and immutability of God’s purpose (Rom 11:33-36).
Predestination is the purpose of God. Providence is the unfolding and accomplishment of God’s purpose. Everything that God has done or has allowed to be done, is doing or allows to be done, and shall do or shall allow to be done is for the spiritual, eternal good of his elect, to the praise and glory of his own great name. In the end everyone shall be made to see this (Rev 4:11; Rev 5:11-14). Beginning with Abraham, Stephen showed the unfolding of God’s eternal purpose until the coming of Christ for the accomplishment of the redemption of his people. Apart from Christ and his great work of redemption the history of the Jews and all that is recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures would be meaningless (Luk 24:27; Luk 24:44-47).
ALL THE EVENTS OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY POINTED TO THE COMING OF CHRIST AND REDEMPTION BY HIM (Act 7:1-47). The whole purpose for which the Bible has been written is to reveal the grace and glory of God in the substitutionary, redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Joh 1:45). The bulk of Stephen’s sermon is consumed with one theme: He shows that all the events of Old Testament history were arranged by Divine providence to reveal God’s eternal purpose of grace in the redemption of sinners by Christ.
God’s covenant with Abraham was a partial revelation of the covenant of grace made with Christ our Surety before the world was made (Act 7:1-8; Heb 7:22; Jer 31:31-34). In that covenant a seed was promised (Act 7:5; Gal 3:26). It was purposed that that chosen seed should fall into bondage (Act 7:6), even as God’s elect fell into the bondage of sin by Adam’s transgression. Deliverance was promised (Act 7:7) by which the glory of God would be revealed. That deliverance of Israel out of Egypt was a beautiful picture of our redemption by the blood of Christ and the power of his grace. The sign and seal of that covenant was circumcision (Act 7:8). Circumcision was typical of the regeneration of God’s elect by the Holy Spirit, by which he separates his own elect from the rest of the world and seals to their hearts all the blessings of covenant grace (Col 2:11; Eph 1:3; Eph 1:13-14).
Joseph was sent of God into Egypt to preserve his people alive (Act 7:9-17). In all things he was a type of Christ. He was the delight of his father (Mat 3:17; Pro 8:30). He was despised and rejected by his brethren (Isa 53:3). He was in the place of God, by God’s appointment and arrangement (Gen 50:19-20; Act 2:23; Act 4:27-28). When his brothers bowed before Joseph they were saved alive and accepted by Pharaoh (Act 7:13; Rom 10:9-10).
Moses was sent to deliver God’s covenant people from the bondage of Egypt (Act 7:18-37). He too was a type of Christ (Act 7:22; Act 7:35-37). He was a man approved of God (Act 2:22). He was a prophet (Joh 3:2). He was a deliverer, by blood and by power. From the day that Israel came out of Egypt they wandered from God, rejected his counsel, and despised his prophets. But God’s purpose could not be defeated, not even by the unbelief and idolatry of the chosen nation (Act 7:38-43; Rom 3:3-4).
The Lord established temporary houses of worship which were to prepare the people for the coming of Christ, but they turned the ordinance of God into idolatry (Act 7:44-47). The tabernacle and its furnishings, first erected in the wilderness (among Gentiles), was a picture of redemption. The temple was a picture of God’s church, of the glory of God dwelling in her, and of her dwelling in the glory of God forever. These blessed objects which should have prepared the hearts of men to receive Christ, the unbelieving Jews turned into idolatrous objects of worship. They became barriers to faith!
NOW THAT CHRIST HAS COME AND REDEMPTION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY HIM ALL CARNAL ORDINANCES OF OLD TESTAMENT WORSHIP ARE FOREVER ABOLISHED (Act 7:48-50). God has forever abolished Jewish, legal worship (Heb 10:1-4). Any reliance upon outward, visible symbols (statues, pictures, crosses, temples, altars, etc.) is idolatry. God cannot be worshipped by the employment of carnal rudiments of the world. All true worship is spiritual (Joh 4:23-24; Php 3:3).
Stephen then declared that CONTINUED, WILFUL REJECTION OF DIVINE TRUTH RESULTS IN ETERNAL REPROBATION (Act 7:51-53). God will not trifle with those who trifle with him (Pro 1:23-33; Mat 23:37-38). Though the Jews, being rejected of God, rejected his Son, God’s purpose was not affected (Rom 3:3-4; Rom 11:11; Rom 11:22-23; Rom 11:26).
OUR GREAT GOD EVEN OVERRULES AND USES THE HANDS OF WICKED MEN TO ACCOMPLISH HIS PURPOSE OF GRACE TOWARD HIS ELECT (Act 7:54-60; Psa 76:10). The stoning of Stephen was an inexcusable act of wickedness on the part of these men. Yet, it was overruled by God and used by him to accomplish his great purpose of grace. It was best for Stephen. He went to glory! It was best for Saul of Tarsus. It was one of those works of prevenient grace that prepared the way for grace to come to him. It was best for God’s church. Soon she would have another apostle, whose conversion, no doubt, had its roots here. It was best for the glory of God! IN THE LIGHT OF THESE THINGS WE SHOULD LEARN TO TRUST THE WISE AND GOOD PROVIDENCE OF OUR GOD!
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
angel
(See Scofield “Heb 1:4”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Are: Act 6:13, Act 6:14, Mat 26:61, Mat 26:62, Mar 14:58-60, Joh 18:19-21, Joh 18:33-35
Reciprocal: Exo 3:20 – General Act 6:5 – Stephen 1Ti 3:13 – great
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THEIR HISTORY BEGAN with God calling Abraham out of his old place and associations, that he might go to the land of Gods choice and there be made a great nation. This is shown in Gen 12:1-3, and it was an epoch-making event, as is evident when we note that a rather longer period of time is compressed into Gen 1:1-31; Gen 2:1-25; Gen 3:1-24; Gen 4:1-26; Gen 5:1-32; Gen 6:1-22; Gen 7:1-24; Gen 8:1-22; Gen 9:1-29; Gen 10:1-32; Gen 11:1-32, than the period expanded to fill all the rest of the Old Testament. The call of Abraham marked a new departure in Gods ways with the earth, and with that new departure Stephen began his address.
Genesis tells us that Jehovah appeared to Abraham, but Stephen knew Him and spoke of Him in a new light. The Jehovah who appeared to Abraham was the God of glory, the God of far more glorious scenes than can be afforded by this world, even at its fairest and best. This it is, doubtless, which accounts for Abrahams faith embracing such heavenly things as are spoken of in Heb 11:10-16. Called by the God of glory, he at least had glimpses of the city and country where glory dwells. On this high note Stephen began, and he ended, as we know, with Jesus in the glory of God.
The main drift of his remarkable address was evidently to bring to the people the conviction of the way in which their fathers and they had been guilty of resisting the operations of God by His Spirit all through their history. He dwells particularly upon what happened when God had raised up servants to institute something new in their history. There had been a series of new departures, of greater or less significance. The original one had been with Abraham, but then followed Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon; all of whom he refers to, though giving far more attention to the first three than to the second three. To none of these had they really responded, and Joseph and Moses they had definitely refused to start with. He ends with the seventh intervention, which threw all the others into the shade-the coming of the Just One-and Him they had just slain.
Stephen made it very plain that the Jewish rulers of his day were but repeating in a worse form the sin of their forefathers. The patriarchs sold Joseph into Egypt because they were moved with envy; and Matthew records the efforts of Pilate to deliver Jesus, for he knew that for envy they had delivered Him. So too with Moses; the saying at which he fled, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? was uttered by one of his brethren, and not by an Egyptian. The rejection came from amongst his own people, and not from outside. Thus too it had been with Jesus.
Exo 2:1-25 does not give us such an insight into the fame and prowess of Moses at the end of his first forty years as is given in verse Act 7:22 of our chapter. He was a man of learning, oratory and action, when it came into his heart to identify himself with his own people, who were the people of God. Having made the plunge, it must have come to him as a terrible shock to be refused by them. At that saying he fled. He did not fear the wrath of the king, as Heb 11:27 tells us, but he could not stand this refusal. He had acted in the consciousness of his own exceptional powers, and now needed forty years of Divine tuition at the back side of the desert to learn that his powers were nothing and the power of God everything. In all this he stands in contrast to our Lord, though he typified Him in the rejection he had to endure.
This Moses was again rejected by their fathers, when he had brought them out of captivity and into the wilderness. In rejecting him, they really rejected Jehovah, and they turned aside into idolatry of a very gross kind. Even in the wilderness, and not only when in the land, they were slack about Jehovahs sacrifices, and tampered with idols, thus paving the way to the Babylonish captivity. Still God had raised up David, and then Solomon built the house. Now in the house they boasted (see Jer 7:4) as though the mere possession of these buildings guaranteed everything, when really God dwelt in the Heaven of heavens, far above the most gorgeous buildings on earth.
Stephens closing words-verses Act 7:51-53 -are marked by great power. They are like an appendix to the Lords own words, recorded in Mat 23:31-36, carrying the indictment on to its dreadful conclusion in the betrayal and murder of the Just One. Their standing before God was on the basis of the law, and though they had received it by the disposition of angels, they had not kept it. The law broken by flagrant idolatry, and the Messiah murdered; there were the two great counts in the indictment against the Jew, and both are prominent in Stephens closing words.
The Holy Ghost, by the lips of Stephen, had completely turned the tables upon his persecutors, and they found themselves arraigned, as though they were in the dock instead of sitting upon the judicial bench. The very suddenness with which Stephen dropped his historic recital, and launched
Gods accusation against them, must have added tremendous power to his words. They were cut to the heart and stirred to fury.
The only calm person evidently was Stephen. Filled with the Spirit, he had a supernatural sight of the glory of God, and of Jesus in that glory, and he testified at once of that which he saw. Ezekiel had seen, the likeness of a throne and the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it (Eze 1:26), but Stephen saw not a mere likeness or appearance, but rather the MAN Himself, standing on the right hand of God. Jesus, once crucified, is now the Man of Gods right hand: He is the mighty Executive, by whom God will administrate the universe!
In his address Stephen had pointed out that though Joseph had been refused by his brethren, he became their saviour and ultimately they all had to bow down to him. He also reminded them that though Moses was at first rejected, he ultimately became both ruler and deliverer of Israel. Now he testifies a similar, but vastly greater thing in connection with Jesus The Just One whom they had murdered, is to become their Judge, and ultimately, for those who receive Him, their great and final Deliverer. In token thereof He was in glory, and Stephen saw Him.
Utterly unable to refute or resist his words, the Jewish leaders rushed into the murder of Stephen, thus fulfilling the Lords words, recorded in Luk 19:14, as to the citizens hating the departed nobleman and sending a message after him saying, We will not have this Man to reign over us. Jesus was still standing in glory, ready to fulfil what Peter had said in Act 3:20, if only they had repented. They did not repent, but gave a violent refusal by stoning Stephen and sending him after his Master. Prominent in connection with this wicked act was a young man named Saul, who consented to his death, and acted as a kind of superintendent at his execution. Thus where the history of Stephen ends, the story of Saul begins.
Stephen, the first Christian martyr, ended his short but striking career in the likeness of his Lord. Filled with the Spirit, his vision was filled with Jesus in glory. He had nothing more to say to men; his last words were addressed to his Lord. To the Lord he committed his spirit, and assuming the attitude of prayer, he desired mercy for his murderers. Who could have anticipated so astounding an answer as was given by his exalted Lord in the conversion of Saul, the arch-murderer? The prayer of the Lord Jesus from the cross for His murderers was answered by the sending forth of the Gospel, to begin at Jerusalem: the prayer of Stephen was answered in the conversion of Saul. That Saul himself never forgot it, is shown by Act 22:20.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Stephen’s Apology
Act 7:1-41
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
After charges against Stephen had been placed, the High Priest with a show of honor, said, “Are these things so?” Stephen then stood forth and made his own answer. This answer is found in Act 7:1-60. We cannot complete our study of the Apology of Stephen in one sermon, but we will cover as much ground as we can.
This sermon, or apology, or defense, which Stephen gave not only recounts Jewish history from Abraham to Moses; but it is replete with quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures. We have seen Stephen as a man of faith and power, of wisdom and spirit, and as a man with a shining face; now we see him as a man versed in the Word of God. He knew how to open up the inspired Truth of God. He knew how to use its message to lay bare the hearts of the false men who heard his words.
I. STEPHEN’S APPEAL TO ABRAHAM (Act 7:2-7)
Abraham was the one character that was the boast of the Jews. They delighted in saying, “We have Abraham to our father.” They loved to say, “Abraham is our father.” Christ answered, “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill Me, a Man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.” Christ admitted that they were Abraham’s seed, but He said plainly, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.”
Let us follow Stephen as he linked the memories concerning Abraham with his appeal to the “Men, brethren, and fathers.”
1. “The God of Glory appeared unto our father Abraham.” That was a wonderful day when God came to Abraham. He came as the God of glory. He came to Abraham with commission and promise. He came with a blessing and as a benefactor. He came to make unto Himself, through Abraham a special people, loved and honored above all the peoples of the earth.
Stephen is paving the way for his final comparison. The God of glory also appeared to the Jews in Stephen’s day. He came in the Person of His Son. The Son had declared the Father, and told Him out to the Jews. The Son had done the will of the Father, spoken the words of the Father, and wrought the works of the Father; yet the Jews had spurned Him and had nailed Him to the tree.
2. The God of Glory came to Abraham with a command. The command with which God spoke to Abraham carried with it a call to come out of one country and into another. In speaking of this Stephen was doing two things:
(1) He was getting back to the beginnings of the nation. Israel was always proud of the fact that her calling had been in Abraham. She banked much upon the grand patriarch who left Mesopotamia to go forth into a land that God was to reveal. Sons of Abraham were favored sons. Abraham had been a friend of God. Unto him God had been wont to reveal His plans. God talked face to face with Abraham.
Abraham was a man favored of God, and loved of Heaven; Abraham was a man of undaunted faith and of peerless character, and he was the head of their nation. Israel felt that through him she had inherited all of her blessings. She was safely hidden in the bosom of Jehovah, simply because she was the posterity of Abraham. She was secure, no matter how far she might depart from the ways of the Lord, because she had obtained by inheritance a position of favor and of grace.
As Stephen began his apology he granted that the Jews around him were the children of Abraham. He said that Abraham was their father. He said more-he said that in Abraham Israel had become inheritors of the land wherein they dwelt. They were Abraham’s seed, and “to Abraham * * and to his seed” the promise had come.
Stephen granted that Israel’s claims were true, but he was paving the way to say something very potent concerning her claims.
Israel had not known the day of her visitation. She was Abraham’s seed but she was not able to enter into Abraham’s promised heritage.
(2) He was getting back to the goodness of God in the call of Abraham. God had called Abraham to get out, that He might lead him in. This is what Stephen was setting forth. He expressed the great purposes of God in this act of love; purposes not linked up in Abraham alone, but purposes that included Abraham’s seed for many generations down the line.
God gave Abraham His pledge of blessing. That pledge, however, never came upon Abraham directly,-not in its fullest meaning. Abraham lived and died a stranger in the land that he should after receive as an inheritance. Abraham, with all of the blessings promised his seed, through his faith and faithfulness, never even anticipated his personal inheritance in the land-he counted himself a stranger and a pilgrim down here, and he journeyed, looking for a city whose Builder and Maker is God.
This is what Stephen preached. This is what Stephen saw. But the Children of Israel saw it not,
3. The God of Glory came to Abraham when, as yet, he had no child. There is something majestic about this recital of Stephen’s. Stephen is relating how God led Abraham wholly out on faith. Abraham heard the command of God to go out, and he went out not knowing whither he went. He heard the promise of God that his seed should possess a land, yet he, himself, never set his foot upon his possessions to claim them; he heard that he should have a possession in connection with a Seed that should be born of his sons, when as yet he had no son. Let me read Stephen’s words. Speaking of Abraham, Stephen said:
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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” (Act 7:5-8).
In all of this Abraham believed God. How matchless was his faith! How far-flung was the grip of his faith? He had a faith that made the impossible possible; he had a faith that made distant centuries, near at hand. His faith looked past his own enfeebled body, and loins too old to have a son; past the barrenness of Sarah’s womb, and her old age, and its helplessness concerning motherhood,-and he saw Isaac born.
He had a faith that passed beyond the sphere of his own earth life; beyond the period in which his seed should dwell in a strange land; beyond all of the tyranny of Pharaoh, and the years of servitude in Egypt-beyond all, and through all, he saw God’s promises made real.
Was not Stephen driving all of this home to the Jews? They claimed Abraham to their father; but they possessed nothing of Abraham’s faith in God. They boasted in their being Abraham’s seed, but they had naught of Abraham’s vision that made the unseen, seen; and, that gave substance to the things hoped for.
O glorious faith! We build upon the promises of God. We shall yet stand with Christ in glory; and, looking back we shall yet say, “There hath not failed one word of all His good promise.”
O glorious faith! We walk under thy banner. We claim all that God hath spoken to us. We trust Him. We cling to His Truth. We write, “Yea, and Amen,” over all that He has written.
O glorious faith! O God-given, and God-honoring faith! Be thou our portion from this time forth and for evermore.
Thank God! Stephen, a man full of faith and of power, was chosen of God to speak with majestic sway upon the faith of faithful Abraham.
II. STEPHEN SHOWED HOW TIME WROUGHT OUT THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF GOD (Act 7:8-16)
How marvelous it all is! Known unto God are all His works from the foundation of the world. In all the long swing of time there has never been a surprise event before God.
Man may not foretell, save by guesses, as he imagines the future by the conduct of the past. God foreknew, and therefore He foretold whenever He desired to do so.
To Abraham, before Isaac was born, and when his birth lay beyond any human possibility, God outlined to Abraham many things:
1. He told him that he should have a son and heir, to be born of Sarah who was past age.
2. He told him that his seed should be as the stars of the heaven for multitude.
3. He told him that his seed should be a stranger in a land that was not theirs for four hundred years.
4. He told him that his seed should possess the land from the river of Egypt, unto the great river Euphrates.
5. He told him of the coming of a Seed, Christ, who should redeem His people.
The above are a very small part of the things that God foretold, but these are the things that fall under the line of Stephen’s message. It is familiar to us all. The envy of Joseph’s brethren, their selling him into Egypt, and his exaltation to authority in Egypt, wrought out, step by step, God’s purposes with His people. The dearth that came into the land, with Pharaoh’s dream, and Joseph’s words of wisdom and advise all played their part. The gathering in of the grain and its being stored by Joseph had its place. The famine that caused Jacob to send his sons down to Egypt to buy corn, with Joseph’s making himself known to his brethren, marked progression in the plans of God, The final arrival of Jacob, with his sons, and his sons’ sons; and their occupancy of the land of Goshen completed the first stage of the fulfillment of God’s purposes.
Why the Lord did all of these things, we may not fully know.
III. STEPHEN SHOWED HOW GOD FIRST VERIFIED HIS PROMISE TO THE SEED OF ABRAHAM POSSESSING THE LAND (Act 7:17)
Let us give attention to Act 7:17-“But when THE TIME of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.”
One feels like taking the shoes off from his feet. He is walking upon holy ground. In the simple story which Stephen told, there was plainly seen the stately steppings of God, as He moved to fulfill that which He had long since promised to Abraham. Let us mark the links in the chain of events:
1. There was the multiplying of the people numerically. Canaan was a large land, capable of sustaining millions, of people. So great an extent of land would have been useless to a few scattered families. Thus, before the land was turned over to the seed of Abraham, their need of the land was assured.
When Moses finally left Egypt, with Israel, they numbered in men alone, six hundred thousand souls.
2. There was the subtilty of the new Pharaoh.
“Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph.
“The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live” (Act 7:18-19).
The Pharaoh that knew not Joseph, became afraid of the fast increasing numbers and power of the Children of Israel. He saw his throne and kingdom menaced thereby, so he instituted a system of slaughter, by which the male sons born to Israel would be killed.
Israel began to cry to God by reason of their affliction. Yet, in all of this, God was only making Israel ready in heart to leave Egypt, that He might give unto her a land like unto the garden of the Lord.
“Sweet are the uses of adversity.”
The nation that had sorrows and afflictions were forced to look to God for relief.
IV. THUS STEPHEN WENT ON AND TOLD IN DETAIL
1. Of the birth of Moses the deliverer (Act 7:20-21).
2. Of Moses and his rejection by Israel (Act 7:23-28).
3. Of Moses’ forty years in Midian (Act 7:29-30).
4. Of how God met him at the burning bush (Act 7:31-34).
5. Of how Moses whom they refused became their deliverer (Act 7:35-36).
With these five statements made, we have set before you the gist of Stephen’s sermon, concerning Moses. We do not know but that you have already anticipated what we are about to say. Personally, we are of the opinion that Stephen had something like this in mind, and that the Jews who heard him, quickly caught the meaning of his words. Let us see the analogy between the people and Moses on the one hand, and the people and Christ on the other.
V. SOME STRIKING ANALOGIES
1. Israel today is scattered among the nations. Of old, Israel was in Egypt, now they are everywhere, sifted as corn is sifted in a sieve. God, however, has never forgotten them; although they have forgotten Him days without number.
2. Israel today is being dealt with subtilely by the nations. Pharaoh, who knew not Joseph persecuted Israel until their cry came to the ears of God, by the reason of their affliction. Once more Israel was in trouble, but God heard their cries. From among the nations, their affliction came before the Almighty.
3. Christ was born the destined deliverer of His people. At the birth of Moses, the destined deliverer had come. At the birth of Christ, the destined Deliverer had also come. We remember how the aged Simeon, taking the infant Christ in his arms, said, “Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, * * for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people.” Then, turning to Mary, Simeon said, “Behold, this Child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against.”
4. Christ was rejected of His brethren. “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” Just as Moses was rejected the first time, so also was Christ. Once more the Children of Israel failed to discern the things which belonged to their peace. She took Christ, her Saviour, and nailed Him to the tree.
5. Christ was rejected of men and is now an exile from his own house. After Moses was rejected he was a stranger forty years in the land of Midian. During that time Israel’s sorrows increased. Dark days grew darker; her groans grew louder. During the eighteen hundred years that Christ, a stranger to Israel, has dwelt at the Father’s right hand, the sorrows of His people have again increased. At this very hour the cup of her anguish is coming to the full.
6. Christ will come to Israel the second time. Moses saw the burning bush, burning, but never consumed. The Children of Israel still live on. Their trials and troubles have not decreased them in number, nor have they overwhelmed them away forever. When Moses went the second time, the people accepted him. So will Christ yet come to be received by His own.
We have but briefly brought before you the story which Stephen was relating to Israel, We have seen how history was prophecy. In the story concerning Israel’s treatment of Moses, we have been reading the story of Israel’s treatment of Christ, This comparison angered Israel beyond all bounds. In our next sermon, we will consider all of this.
Just now, we wish only to remind you that the trend of events which marked the rise and fall of Israel, with her final deliverance from Pharaoh and her entrance, afterward, into the land of Canaan, is a foreshadowing of Israel’s final deliverance.
VI. STEPHEN GAVE A TWOFOLD COMPARISON (Act 7:37-41)
1. There is a comparison between Moses and Christ. In the Book of Hebrews we read of “Christ Jesus; who was faithful to Him that appointed Him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.” Later we read, “And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ as a son over His own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.”
2, There is a comparison between the fathers of Moses’ day, and the fathers of Christ’s day. Mark Stephen’s charge:
(1) “Our fathers would not obey,” The story of Israel’s refusal to obey Moses, is a long one. There was Moses’ first appearance and their repudiation of him. Then, there followed the return, after forty years, and the sad experiences during the forty further years of wilderness journey-ings. Never did they manifest a perfect heart toward Moses.
(2) “Our fathers * * thrust him from them.” This was fulfilled in many ways, during the ministry of Moses-a period that stretched through the years. Time and again rebellion broke loose and the people sought to repudiate their leader. As Stephen spoke, the wrath of the people began to rise. They knew well that Stephen was likening them to their fathers. They had done to Christ, just what the fathers had done to Moses. They had refused to obey, and they had thrust Christ from them.
(3) “Our fathers * * in their hearts turned back again into Egypt.” They longed for the melons, and the garlic. This seems impossible, yet it was so. They went so far as to prefer the fleshpots of Egypt to the angel’s food that God rained down from heaven. We are amazed that any people would long for Egyptian bondage, and for cruel taskmasters, and for abject servitude, to the liberty and joy of God’s presence and power. Yet so it was; and so it is.
The Israelites of Christ’s day denied Him, and chose Barabbas. They were goaded by the Roman yoke; yet, they chose that yoke, with all that Roman tyranny stood for, to the deliverance of Christ. He who healed their sick, raised their dead, and fed them with the Heavenly Bread,-was repudiated. The people set their faces against their Deliverer.
Let us not be too harsh against the Israel of Christ’s day. It is the same in our day. Men still love darkness rather than light. Men have life and death, the blessing and the curse, set before them today, and the masses chose death and the curse. Christ, the Giver of every good and perfect gift is still rejected, while men enroll under the flag of Satan, the greatest of all tyrants.
(4) “Our fathers * * made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto an idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.” To what depths did the people fall. They gave themselves over to worship the host of heaven; yea, they took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of their god, Remphan. All of this outreaches the seeming possibilities of sin. How could a people who had known what they had known, and who had felt what they had felt, go to such depths of dental of God. Turning against God’s servant, they soon turned against God.
We can only concede what God hath spoken, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Let us remember also, that what is true of Israel is true of the Gentiles. There is no difference for all have sinned. Are we better than they; or they, better than we? Not at all. God hath concluded all under sin. The whole world stands with their mouth shut before God, the just Judge.
Thus did Stephen charge the sins of the sons, his contemporaries, by outlining before them the sins of their fathers. And the people needed no interpreter to comprehend his message.
What Stephen said, was in line with what Paul later said. Paul spoke of the Israelites of old, of their lusting after evil things; of their being idolaters; of their committing fornication; of their tempting Christ, and of their murmuring; then he said, “These things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” What do the words of Paul imply? That Israel was no more wicked than we. That we are no better, by nature, than she. God have mercy on us all.
The Jews to whom Stephen spoke boasted in Moses, but Stephen told them they, in their treatment of Christ, were the same as their fathers had been in their treatment of Moses.
The Jews of Stephen’s day knew of the sins of their fathers. They knew how God had made a covenant with their fathers, and how their fathers had refused to walk therein. They knew how their fathers had tempted God in their heart, by asking meat in their lust. They knew how their fathers had spoken against God, saying, “Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?” They had not believed God, nor trusted in His salvation; yea, “they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel. They remembered not His hand, nor the day when He delivered them from the enemy.”
As Stephen spoke he was shooting darts of conviction into the hearts of the people. We need not wonder that hearts full of envy and deceit and of every evil work were resentful. Men do not care to have their wickedness exposed. This leads us to Stephen’s next great charge:
VII. A TERRIBLE CONSUMMATION (Act 7:42-43)
There are two things which Stephen said God did. Both of these things befell the Israelites of old as the consummation of their own folly, the reward of their own sins-God did them both.
1. God gave them up. How solemn, how startling are the words, “Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven!” It has always been so. It will always be so. God does not force men to worship Him. All day long He pleads. He sends messengers to call men from their evil way. He ofttimes chastens those He loves. But when His people refuse His call, He must finally give them up.
We remember how Christ said, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Then what? Here are the Lord’s own words, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” What Christ said, in brief, was this: “I would”; “Ye would not”; “I could not.” Then the Lord gave Israel her own way. God gave them up.
What was true of Israel was also true of the Gentiles of old. The Gentiles “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up.”
The Gentiles “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator”; “Wherefore God also gave them tip.”
The Gentiles, “Did not like to retain God in their knowledge,” even so, “God gave them over.”
Israel was broken off, as a branch of an olive tree is broken. Let the Church also fear, lest she also be broken off.
What horrors He in the words-“God also gave them up.” Let the man who spurns the Saviour’s love, beware! God may say, “Cut (him) down; why cumbereth (he) the ground.”
2. God carried them to Babylon. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar felt that he was worthy of praise for his victory over Israel. He took the city, carried away its wealth and its people. He even took the golden and silver vessels that were in the Temple of God. Yet, Nebuchadnezzar’s victory was no more than the permissive will of God. The fact is that God was using the wrath of man to praise him. He was using Babylon’s king as a whip in His hand, to whip a disobedient and a gainsaying people.
It was something akin to this, that God spoke to the Corinthians, when He said, “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
It was something akin to this that Christ had in mind when He said to Peter, “Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.”
Let saints, as well as sinners, remember that the way of the transgressor is hard. With sinners eternity holds the lake of fire. With saints the present day brings chastisement.
There are some who may feel that God is too severe in His judgments. Stephen, therefore, returns for a moment to the consideration of Israel’s blessings and favors, given her of God.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
1
Act 7:1. We are still in the Sanhedrin where the false witnesses have just made the serious charge of blasphemy against Stephen. Are these things sot This was said by the high priest, because under a practice started by the Jews, he was the presiding judge of the Sanhedrin. The act of proposing this question was about the only just thing that was done for Stephen. It was the order in any fair court, religious or otherwise, to permit a prisoner to speak for himself concerning accusations being brought against him. (See Joh 7:51; Act 22:25.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 7:1. Then said the high priest, Are these things so? A hush seems to have fallen on the council as they watched that strange unearthly brightness light up the countenance of the accused, and in silence all gazed on the rapt expression of that face which seemed to his enemies the face of an angel.
The high priest breaks the silence, but his gentle question betrays his emotion, very different from the rougher address of Caiaphas to our Lord (Mat 26:62), or to the harsh command of the high priest Ananias when he bade his officers smite the prisoner Paul on the mouth when he was examined before the council (Act 23:2). He simply asks him, Are you really guilty of impious blasphemies against the Temple and the law?
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
This chapter contains St. Stephen’s apology, or defensative plea which he makes for himself: The Jews had in the foregoing chapter accused him for blaspheming their law, and profaning their temple, imagining that Almighty God was so pleased with the temple-service and Mosaic rites, that no other way of worship could be acceptable to him.
Therefore by an historical deduction, he shows them that God was worshipped aright before either tabernacle or temple was built, or any of the Mosaic rites instituted or ordained, and consequently that the true worship of God was not necessarily and inseparably annexed to any of these things.
For the proof of this, he begins at Abraham, and shew them, that he living of old at Ur of the Chaldeans, in the midst of idolators, God was pleased of his free mercy to call him, to enlighten, and draw him to own and worship the true God, and commanding him to leave his native country, and go into a land which he should shew him; He promised to make of him a great nation, and that in him all the families of the earth should be blessed. Now the design and drift of Stephen in this relation, is to prove, that Abraham, from his first call in Chaldea, when he was seventy years old, to the time of his being ninety years old, had served God faithfully all that time, without either circumcision or ceremony, without tabernacle or temple; and consequently, that the true worship of God might be now performed acceptably after these ceremonies were abolished, as well as it was performed before they were instituted.
Learn hence, 1. That religious worship is manifestly due to God by the law and light of nature.
2. That the manner how that worship should be acceptably performed, was not known by the law of nature, but discovered by divine revelation. Adam in innocence knew God was to be worshipped; yet he did not know by what outward acts he was to testify that homage, till God the Sovereign Governor and Supreme Lawgiver did give direction.
3. That the worship due from the creature to God the Creator, is a spiritual worship and ought to be spiritually performed.
4. The Judaical worship, though appointed by God himself, was fleshly and carnal, and never pleased God for its own sake.
5. The evangelical worship being spiritual, and most suitable to the nature of God, is therefore most acceptable and best pleasing to him. The ceremonial worship was therefore good, because God commanded it; but the evangelical worship is therefore commanded, because good.
The legal worship is called flesh in scripture, and a carnal ordinance, in opposition to the gospel, which is called spirit, and a ministration of the Spirit, because attended with a more spiritual efficacy on the hearts and lives of men.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
A Face Like an Angel
Perhaps Paul reported to Luke the remarkable appearance of the face of Stephen. Luke told Theophilus that those in the council saw Stephen’s face “as the face of an angel.” The closest thing to this experience is found in Exo 34:29-35 which reports that Moses’ face shone after he had been with the Lord to the point that people could not look directly at him. Despite Stephen’s appearance, the high priest asked him if the accusations of blasphemy, which had been brought against him, were true ( Act 6:15 ; Act 7:1 ).
This man, full of faith, power, wisdom and the Holy Spirit ( Act 6:3 ; Act 6:8 ), directed his answer toward a history of God’s dealings with Abraham and his children. It seems significant that a man accused of blasphemy would begin his defense by talking about the “God of glory.” He reminded the council of Abraham’s call to leave the country of his people, which was first received in Ur of the Chaldees and renewed in Haran after his father’s death. As Stephen noted, Abraham then moved, under God’s direction, to the land of Canaan ( Act 7:2-4 ; Gen 12:1-9 ).
Though God did not give Abraham an inheritance in the promised land, he did promise to give him a son and to give the land of Canaan to his descendants. Stephen also said God told the father of the faithful his children’s children would be held in bondage in Egypt for four hundred years. The actual length of their stay in Egypt was 430 years, but Stephen rounded off to 400, just as God had in Gen 15:13 . He continued his speech by noting how God told Abraham he would judge the nation of Egypt and bring his people out to serve him in the land of promise at the end of the appointed time. Ash notes Stephen mentioned God judges all those who oppose him, which is a good observation for those members of the council who were at that time questioning him. After making those significant promises, God instituted circumcision as a part sign of the covenant between Abraham and his descendants ( Act 7:5-8 ; Exo 12:40-41 ; Gen 17:9-14 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Act 7:1-3. Then said the high-priest Who was president of the council, and, as such, the mouth of the court; Are these things so? Are they as these witnesses have deposed? for thou art permitted to speak for thyself, and make thy defence. And he said Stephen had been accused of blasphemy against Moses, and even against God; and of speaking against the temple and the law, threatening that Jesus would destroy the one and change the other. In answer to this accusation, rehearsing, as it were, the articles of his historical creed, he speaks of God with high reverence, and a grateful sense of a long series of acts of goodness to the Israelites; and of Moses with great respect, on account of his important and honourable employments under God; of the temple with regard, as being built to the honour of God; yet not with such superstition as the Jews; putting them in mind, that no temple could comprehend God. And he was going on, no doubt, when he was interrupted by their clamour, to speak to the last point, the destruction of the temple, and the change of the law by Christ. The sum of his discourse is this: I acknowledge the glory of God revealed to the fathers, Act 7:2; the calling of Moses, Act 7:34, &c.; the dignity of the law, Act 7:8; Act 7:38; Act 7:44; the holiness of this place, Act 7:7; Act 7:45; Act 7:47. And, indeed, the law is more ancient than the temple; the promise more ancient than the law. For God showed himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their children, freely, Act 7:2, &c., 9, &c., 17, &c., 32, 34, 45; and they showed faith and obedience to God, Act 7:4; Act 7:20, &c., 23; particularly by their regard for the law, Act 7:8, and the promised land, Act 7:16. Meantime God never confined his presence to this one place, or to the observers of the law. For he hath been acceptably worshipped, before the law was given, or the temple built, and out of this land, Act 7:2; Act 7:9; Act 7:33; Act 7:44. And that our fathers and their posterity were not tied down to this land, their various sojournings, Act 7:4, &c., 14, 29, 44, and exile, Act 7:43, show. But you and your fathers have always been evil, Act 7:9; have withstood Moses, Act 7:25, &c., 39, &c.; have despised the land, Act 7:39; forsaken God, Act 7:40, &c.; superstitiously honoured the temple, Act 7:48; resisted God and his Spirit, Act 7:50; killed the prophets, and the Messiah himself, Act 7:51; and kept not the law, for which ye contend, Act 7:53. therefore God is not bound to you, much less to you alone. And, truly, this solemn testimony of Stephen is most worthy of his character, as a man full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith, and power: in which, though he does not advance so many regular propositions, contradictory to those of his adversaries, yet he closely and nervously answers them all. Nor can we doubt but he would, from these premises, have drawn inferences touching the destruction of the temple, the abrogation of the Mosaic law, the punishment of that rebellious people, and, above all, touching Jesus of Nazareth, the true Messiah, had not his discourse been interrupted by the clamours of the multitude, stopping their ears and rushing upon him. Men, brethren, and fathers All who are here present, whether ye are my equals in years, or of more advanced age. The word which, in this and many other places, is rendered men, is a mere expletive. The God of glory The glorious God; appeared to Abraham before he dwelt in Charran Therefore Abraham knew God long before he was in this land. And he said, Get thee out of thy country Depart from this thy native country, which is become idolatrous; and from thy kindred Who are now alienated from my worship; and come into the land A remote land; which I shall show thee And to which, by my extraordinary interposition, I will guide thee; though at present thou dost not know even its situation, much less the way leading to it. See note on Gen 12:2.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
VII: 1. Then said the high priest, Are these things so? Stephen responds in a long and powerful discourse.
There is great diversity of opinion among commentators, as to the logical bearing and connection of this discourse. We would naturally expect to find in it-if we regard it as properly a defense-a formal response to the charge which had been preferred. But it contains no direct answer to any of the specifications. He neither admits nor denies what was charged in reference to the destruction of the temple by Jesus and the changing of the customs delivered by Moses; though his silence may be regarded as an admission that the witnesses had spoken the truth on these points. Neither does he formally answer to the charge of blasphemy against Moses and against God, or against the holy temple and the law. The only thing in the discourse that has even an indirect bearing in this way, is his frequent reference to facts contained in the writings of Moses, which has been understood, by some commentators, as intended to indicate a degree of respect for Moses inconsistent with a disposition to speak blasphemy against him. But if such was his purpose, it is unaccountable that he should have pursued so indirect a course, instead of distinctly avowing the sentiments he intended to indicate. Again, this supposition can not account for the introduction of so many facts connected with the persecution of various individuals.
The best statement of the drift of the discourse, I think, is this: The charge against him was hypocritically preferred, and his judges had no intention to investigate it, but were using it merely as an excuse for his predetermined condemnation to death. They were now giving him somewhat the form for a trial, to keep up appearances before the people. Under such circumstances, Stephen knew that it would be useless to offer a formal defense; and, therefore, he does not undertake it. He sees, however, that his persecutors were identifying themselves, by their proceedings, with the unbelieving and persecuting portion of their forefathers, and he determines to make them stand forth to the people in this their true position. In prosecuting this purpose he selects his material from the writings of Moses, and shows that his accusers are with the persecuting party, while his Master and himself are side by side with Moses and others whom they had persecuted: Thus he hurls back upon them, and fastens on them, effectually, the charge which they had falsely preferred against him.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Acts Chapter 7
Stephen, [11] as far as we are told, had not known the Lord during His life on earth. Certainly he was not appointed, like the apostles, to be a witness of that life. He was simply the instrument of the Holy Ghost, distributing to whom He would.
He begins therefore their history from the beginning of Gods way, that is, from Abraham, called out by the revelation of the God of glory, slow indeed to obey, but at length led by the patient grace of God into Canaan. Nevertheless, he was a stranger in the promised land; and bondage was to be the portion of his descendants, until God interposed in grace. The lot, therefore, of the blessed patriarch was not that of possessing the promises, but of being a stranger; and that of his descendants was to be captives until God delivered them with a strong arm. Nothing can be more striking than the calm superiority to circumstances displayed by Stephen. He recites to the Jews a history they could not deny, a history they boasted in, yet it condemned them utterly. They were doing as their fathers had done. But two persons are specially prominent in Stephens account, in connection with the goodness of God towards Israel at this period-Joseph and Moses. Israel had rejected them both, given up Joseph to the Gentiles, rejected Moses as judge and leader. It was, in cases which the Jews could not deny or object to, the history of Christ also, who, too, at the time appointed of God, will indeed be the Redeemer of Israel. This is the substance of Stephens argument. The Jews had always rejected those whom God had sent and in whom the Holy Ghost had acted, and the testimony of the same Holy Ghost in the prophets who had spoken of the Christ whom they had now betrayed and slain. Besides this, according to Moses, they had worshipped false gods, even from the time of their deliverance out of Egypt [12] -a sin which, however great the long-suffering of God, would cause them to be carried away, now that they had filled up the measure of their iniquity, beyond the Babylon which had already been their punishment.
It is a most striking summing up of their whole history-the history of man with all the means of restoration supplied. The full measure of guilt is stated. They had received the law and had not kept it, rejected the prophets who had testified of Christ, and betrayed and murdered Christ Himself-always resisted the Holy Ghost. What they did trust in, the temple, God rejected. God Himself has been, as it were, a stranger in the land of Canaan; and if Solomon built Him a house, it was in order that the Holy Ghost might declare that He who had heaven for His throne, and earth for His footstool, whose dominion was universal, would not dwell in houses of stone, which were the creation of His own hand. Thus we have the complete summing up of their history, connected with the last days of their judgment. They always resisted the Holy Ghost, as they had always disobeyed the law. Judaism was judged, after the long patience of God and all His ways of grace with man as means were exhausted. For Israel was man under the special dealings and care of God. Mans guilt now is not only sin, but sin in spite of all that God has done. It was the turning-point of mans history. Law, prophets, Christ, the Holy Ghost, all tried, and man at enmity against God. The cross had really proved it, but this had added the rejection of the testimony of the Holy Ghost to a glorified Christ. All was over with man, and began anew with the second Man ever in connection with heaven.
Their conscience convicted, and their heart hardened, their will unchanged, the members of the council were filled with rage, and gnashed upon him with their teeth. But if Stephen was to bear this definitive testimony against Israel, he was not merely to render the testimony, but much more to place it in its true relative position, by a living expression of that which a believer was in virtue of the presence of the Holy Ghost here below dwelling in him. In their history we have man always resisting the Holy Ghost; in Stephen, a man full of Him consequent on redemption.
Such are the elements of this touching and striking scene, which forms an epoch in the history of the assembly. The heads of Israel gnash their teeth with rage, against the mighty and convincing testimony of the Holy Ghost, with which Stephen was filled. They had rejected a glorified Christ, as they had slain a humbled one. Let us follow out the effect as to Stephen himself. He looks stedfastly up to heaven; now fully opened to faith. It is thither that the Spirit directs the mind, making it capable of fixing itself there. He reveals to one who is thus filled with Himself the glory of God on high, and Jesus in that glory at the right hand of God, in the place of power-Son of man in the far higher place than that of Psa 2:1-12, that of Psa 8:1-9, though all things were not yet put under Him (compare Joh 1:50-51). Afterwards He gives the effect of the testimony borne in the presence of the power of Satan, the murderer.
I see, said Stephen, the heavens opened. Such then is the position of the true believer-heavenly upon the earth-in presence of the world that rejected Christ, the murderous world; the believer, alive in death, sees by the power of the Holy Ghost into heaven, and the Son of man at the right hand of God. Stephen does not say Jesus. The Spirit characterises Him as the Son of man! Precious testimony to man! Nor is it to the glory of God that he testifies (this was natural to heaven) but to the Son of man in the glory, heaven being open to him, and then looks to Him as the Lord Jesus, to receive his spirit, the first example and full testimony of the state of the believers soul after death with Christ glorified.
With regard to the progress of the testimony, it is not now that Jesus is the Messiah, and He will return if you repent (which, however, does not cease to be true), but it is the Son of man in heaven, which is open to the man that is filled with the Holy Ghost-that heaven to which God is about to transport the soul, as it is the hope and the testimony of those that are His. The patience of God was doubtless still acting in Israel; but the Holy Ghost opened new scenes and new hopes to the believer. [13]
But remark that Stephen, in consequence of seeing Jesus in heaven, perfectly resembles Jesus upon earth-a fact precious in grace to us: only that the glory of His Person is in all cases carefully guarded. Jesus, though heaven was opened to Him, was Himself the object to which heaven looked down, and who was publicly owned and sealed of the Father. He did not need a vision to present an object to His faith, nor did it produce any transformation into the same image by revelation of the glory. But Father, into Thy hands I commit my spirit is found in Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And the affection for Israel which expresses itself in intercession, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do, is found again in Lord, lay not this sin to their charge; save that here the Holy Ghost does not now affirm that they are ignorant.
But it is well to dwell a moment on that which brings out more clearly the especial position of Stephen, the vessel of the Spirits testimony, so definitively rejected by the Jews; and the divine character and Person of Jesus, even where His disciple is most like Him. Heaven is open to Jesus, the Holy Ghost descends upon Him and He is acknowledged the Son of God. Heaven opens on Jesus, and the angels descend upon the Son of man: but He has no object presented to Him; He is Himself the object on which heaven is gazing. Heaven will open at the end of the age, and Jesus Himself come forth on the white horse (that is, in judgment and triumph). Here, too, heaven opens, and the disciple, the Christian, full of the Holy Ghost, sees into it, and there beholds Jesus at the right hand of God. Jesus is still the object, before of heaven, now of the believing man who is filled with the Holy Ghost; so that, as to the object of faith and the position of the believer, this scene is definitively characteristic. Jesus has no object, but is the object of heaven when it opens; the saint has, and it is Jesus Himself in heaven when it is open. Rejected, and rejected by the Jews, like Jesus, partaking in His sufferings, and filled with His Spirit of grace, Stephens eyes are fixed on high, on the heaven which the Holy Ghost opens to him; and he sees the Son of man there ready to receive his spirit. The rest will come later; but it is not only Jesus, whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution, but also the souls of His believing people until the moment of resurrection, and the whole church, in spirit, detached from the world that rejected Him, and from Judaism that opposed the testimony of the Holy Ghost. The latter, Judaism, is no longer at all recognised; there is no longer any room for the long-suffering of God towards it. Its place is taken by heaven, and by the assembly, which, so far as it is consistent, follows her Master there in spirit, while waiting for His return.
Footnotes for Acts Chapter 7
11: He is the expression of the power of the Holy Ghost witnessing to Christ glorified, who had been now thus presented to Israel, who had already rejected Him in humiliation. From the fall to the flood, man, though not left without witness, was otherwise left to himself. There were no special ways and institutions of God. The result was the flood, to cleanse, so to speak, the earth from its horrible pollution and violence. In the new world God began to deal with man. Government was set up in Noah. But in Abraham one was, by electing grace, called out, and Gods promises given to him when the world had turned to demons. This began the history of Gods people, but the question of righteousness was not raised. This the law did, claiming it from man. Then prophets came in patient grace. Then, the last appeal of God for fruits, and testimony of grace, the Son was sent. He was now rejected, and on His intercession the Holy Ghost had witnessed to His glory by Peter (Act 3:1-26) for their repentance, and now dealt with them as to it by Stephen.
12: Observe, too, here, that however long the patience of God had lasted, repentance not being its result, the first sin, the first departure from God, bears its penalty at the end.
13: The Holy Ghost opens heaven to our view, and enables us to contemplate that which is found there; and forms us on earth according to the character of Jesus. As to the change that took place in the progress of Gods dealings, it appears to me that it was the realisation by the Spirit of the effect of the veil being rent. Jesus is seen still standing; because, until the rejection by Israel of the testimony of the Holy Ghost, He did not definitely sit down, waiting for the judgment of His enemies. Rather He remained, in the position of High Priest, standing; the believer with Him on high by the Spirit, and the soul having thus far joined Him there in heaven; for now, by the blood of Christ, by that new and living way, it could enter within the veil. On the other hand, the Jews having done the same thing with regard to the testimony of the Holy Ghost that they did with regard to Jesus, having (so to speak) in Stephen sent a messenger after Him to say, We will not have this man to reign over us, Christ definitively takes His place, seated in heaven, until He shall judge the enemies who would not that He should reign over them. It is in this last position that He is viewed in the Epistle to the Hebrews; in which consequently they are exhorted to come out of the camp of Israel, following after the victim whose blood had been carried into the sanctuary; thus anticipating the judgment, which fell upon Jerusalem intermediately by means of the Romans, in order to set the nation aside, as it will be finally executed by Jesus Himself. The position of Stephen therefore resembles that of Jesus, the testimony being that of the Spirit to Jesus glorified. This makes the great principle of the Epistle to the Hebrews very plain. The doctrine of the church, announced by Paul after the revelation made to him on his way to Damascus, goes further than this; that is, it declares the union of Christians with Jesus in heaven, and not merely their entrance into the holy place through the rent veil, where the priest might only go in previously, behind the veil which hid God from the people.
Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament
EXPATRIATION
1-7. Despite the awful doom of the antediluvians, the people after the flood soon became terribly wicked. While they constantly ploughed up the bones of their antediluvian predecessors, fear and trembling appalled them so they were constantly resolving to be good. Ah! the road to hell is strewn with good resolutions. The postdiluvians had inherited evil hearts from their predecessors. Hence a wicked life inevitably followed, as it always will unless we go to God and receive a new heart. Despite the grand boom given to holiness in the flood, when all of the wicked were taken out of the world and righteousness ruled the only surviving home, yet wickedness so increased that God found it necessary in the third postdiluvian century to begin de novo, calling Abraham to leave the world and identify himself with God alone. In the home of his childhood, in the beautiful alluvial plains of Mesopotamia, that delightful rich, level country between the Tigris and the Euphrates, the cradle of the postdiluvian world, first settled by the sons of Noah after the deluge, where at a later date Nimrod gave himself imperishable notoriety by attempting to found a human government independently of the Almighty (though nowadays all the governments on the globe are Nimrodic without a blush). Such was the wickedness of his native land that God required Abraham to leave his kindred and country and follow whither He led. This is now and has ever been the first step in a true heavenly pilgrimage. A prophet is without honor in his own country. Expatriation as a rule is a sine qua non in a really fruitful ministry for God and souls.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathomed caves of Ocean bear; Full many a flower is born to blush unseen And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
As a rule, you must leave your native land if you would be eminently useful.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
The scope and design of St. Stephens defence before the council will be better understood, if it be properly analyzed. The rulers construed his defence to import, that the glory of their temple should wane; that the institutions of Moses were about to be superseded; and that the rulers did always resist the Holy Ghost.
First, he describes the state of Abraham while he dwelt in Haran, as a state of uncircumcision when he received the promise of the Messiah, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed.
Secondly, in this state of uncircumcision he believed in God, and became heir of the righteousness which is obtained by faith. Then follows the events which happened to him, and to his seed in the land of Canaan, and during their residence in Egypt, where they were nourished with bread and multiplied.
Thirdly, the faithfulness of God to his promise when he appeared to Moses at the burning bush, and declared himself still to be the God of Abraham, and the defender of his children.
Fourthly, he notices the successive revolts of their fathers, both in Egypt and in the wilderness, when they worshipped the calf, and the hosts of heaven.
Fifthly, Stephen being full of the Holy Ghost, could restrain his spirit no longer, but told the council that like their fathers they were stiffnecked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, always resisting the Holy Ghost. This roused the murderous enmity that slumbered in their hearts. They demonstrated the truth of his words by interrupting his defence, and stoning him instantaneously. Now, the mounds of restraint bursting on every side, they poured a flood of vengeance on all the churches of Judea, as stated in the eighth chapter.
Act 7:2. The God of glory appeared to Abraham. Genesis 12. First in Haran, and next before he left the fine country of Mesopotamia, the land where his ancestors were born. Jdg 3:8. Stephens commencement with the call of Abraham was proper to prove that Christ had descended in the line of that patriarch, and of David, to whom the promises were made.
Act 7:5. He gave him no inheritance in the land of Canaan: and Abraham was content to be a stranger on earth, and to seek a better country. He differed from other patriarchs in not building any city, because he looked for a city which had the rock of ages for its foundation. In this he is a perfect pattern for us to follow.
Act 7:6. Four hundred years, from the birth of Isaac, as stated in Ruth 4. and 1Ki 6:1. These years are reckoned from the first call of Abraham to his entrance into Canaan, amounting to five years. To the birth of Isaac, twenty five years. To the birth of Jacob, sixty years; who went into Egypt at the age of a hundred and thirty. The residence of his descendants in Egypt during two hundred and ten years being added, make the exact number of four hundred and thirty years, as stated in Gen 15:13. The thirty years had elapsed before the Lord appeared to Abraham at sacrifice in the promised land.
Act 7:8. He gave him the covenant of circumcision, as in Gen 17:12.
Act 7:14. Threescore and fifteen souls. The Chaldaic and Josephus follow the Hebrew, and read seventy, as in Gen 46:27, and Deu 10:22. How is this reconciled with the Greek, which reads seventy five? The LXX add the five grandsons of Joseph, in the line of Ephraim and Manasseh. Other conjectures of the critics are offered, but this alone is generally received.
Act 7:15-16. So Jacob went into Egypt and died there, he and our fathers, and were carried and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought of the sons of Emmor. That is, in the sepulchre called Macpelah. There Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried, believing in the resurrection of the dead. The difficulty in Gen 33:19, that Jacob bought a piece of land of Hamor, Shechems father, is fully removed by numerous instances from the Greek and Latin authors, that children in patriarchal society are called by the more honourable name of any of their forefathers, and sometimes the name of the father is put for the name of the children.
Act 7:20. Moses was born, and was exceeding fair: , divinely beautiful.
Act 7:22. Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. They studied geometry, and were the first nation to build temples. They understood the zodiac, or twelve signs of heaven. Languages, eloquence and posy were cultivated there. Occult sciences were the lowest of their studies. Moses was learned in the art of war; he accompanied the army through the deserts of Numidia to Ethiopia, as related by Josephus. In a word, he had a princely education.
Act 7:25. Moses supposed his brethren would have understood, that God (by vision or dream) had appeared to him, and called him to emancipate the Hebrews. It is quite plain, as in John the baptists case, though no particulars are named, that Moses was divinely called to be the judge of Israel. But they might have understood it from his marvellous preservation.
Act 7:38. This is he, even the prophet promised by Moses, that was in the church in the wilderness. The God who spake to Moses at the burning bush, is called the Angel of JEHOVAH, and a little afterwards, JEHOVAH. When Moses asked his name, he answered, I AM THAT I AM. And Moses, the prince of prophets, prays for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush to be with Israel. Deu 33:16. The fathers of the church with one consent attribute all these words to Christ, and infer his deity, his prexistence, and power to remit or punish the sins of Israel. How blind soever the jews might be as to the subsistence of the three hypostases, the scriptures being full of this doctrine, we are bound to hold fast the faith against all modern and ancient apostasy. To ascribe all those powers and titles to any created angel is blasphemy. No angel durst say, I am Jehovah thy God. The chariots of angels, countless in number, were in attendance on the Lord, as in Psa 82:1. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods. This is the faith in which Stephen died: he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
Act 7:41. They made a calf in those days. Many divines think that this calf was intended to represent Jehovah, and not Apis the Egyptian idol; especially as the calf was one of the four living creatures which the prophet saw in vision. Ezekiel 1, 4, 10. This somewhat diminishes Aarons sin; and no doubt he acted in some degree of ignorance. Hence his life was spared. But oh what mischief followed!
Act 7:42. God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven. They embraced the worship of Sabianism, which was anterior to idolatry, and pervaded the whole oriental world, as stated on Job 1:15.
Act 7:43. The tabernacle of Moloch. An Egyptian king was called Moloch, who was idolized after death, and supposed to be represented by Mars. Remphan is conjectured to be the king who elevated Joseph, and to be deified after death, because of his riches, and represented by Saturn. So Dr. Hammond.
Act 7:53. Received the law by the disposition of angels. Jehovah, the Christ, came down in the sight of all the people. Exo 19:11. Not indeed in figure, but in visible glory, and in all the grandeur of celestial majesty. God himself gave the law, but angels attended as servants of the Messiah, and as witnesses of the covenant. Or the law was given to make man partaker of the disposition of angels. Or the law was given, that it might be published by prophets and ministers, who are often called angels. This text should be understood as in Gal 3:19. See a long note here in HEINSIUS.
Act 7:56. I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God, exercising all his regal powers in glory. Psa 8:5.
Act 7:58. The witnesses laid down their clothes at a young mans feet, whose name was Saul. Cardinal Baronius contends that Saul was now thirty five years of age, and in the ministry, and profited above his equals in the jewish religion. It appears however that his father had become a Roman citizen, engaged in military service. In stoning a blasphemer, the jewish executioners threw heavy stones upon him, while he lay extended on the ground, which broke all his bones.
REFLECTIONS.
In the preseding chapter we have seen the blessed Stephen foremost in the care of the poor, and foremost in defending the faith; now we see him as a choice ram of the flock led to the altar, the first of martyrs, after his Master, and the best of men. His name, which in the Greek signifies a crown, was indicative of the honour that awaited him, and all others who followed in this triumphant road to glory. The fragrance of his sacrifice perfumed the church, and shed the lustre of conquest on all her tears. His colleagues in the ministry became animated by his example, and expecting daily a similar laurel, they lived on earth as the inhabitants of heaven.
We may also observe, that great talents are to be enjoyed with humility and awe. Stephen refuted and confounded the heads of all the sects in Jerusalem and the jewish church, and thereby exposed himself to their malice and fury: and in the degenerate ages of the christian church, they would perhaps have exposed him to the jealousy and envy of his own brethren.
We see the issue of coming to close quarters with wicked men: and if we do not deliver our own soul in a meek and modest manner, God will surely require their blood at our hand. If men on being closely pressed with truth, and an honest charge of their sins, with all the dire consequences of impenitency, do not yield to tears, they will rend us as the swine. These wicked jewish sectarians became so exasperated, and there can be no greater proof of their being vanquished, as to imitate Jezebel in the sad case of Naboth, and to force accusations against Stephen of blasphemy; for they knew the temper of the council towards the christians. And if the heart be so wicked, how energetic should the ministry be which has to vanquish it.
When the blast is strong it brightens the furnace, and refines the metal. While those wicked men, forced to their last retreat by the power of truth, discovered the character of devils, the face of Stephen shone as an angel of God. The power of his faith and the hope of glory irradiated all his soul; and the emboldening presence of his Master enabled him to stand as a hero on the theatre of the universe.
When Stephen was put to the bar, he was more solicitous of the Messiahs honour, than of his own safety. Scorning or waving all defence, he endeavoured to draw the attention of the council wholly to the promise made of God unto the fathers. He traced it in a learned line of argument down to Solomon. But on intimating a spiritual worship, as in the fiftieth Psalm, though delicately doing it in the words of Solomon, who confessed that the Most High dwelt not in temples made with hands, the council had no patience to hear him farther. They seem to have interrupted his discourse by outrage and clamour.
This holy confessor and martyr, availing himself of a pause in the vociferations, charged home their wickedness, as uncircumcised in heart and ear against the law and religion of heaven, and as acting in the very spirit of their rebellious fathers who had massacred the prophets. And while he spake these words he was filled with a zeal so holy and pure, that heaven itself could not surpass it in excellence; for indeed, heaven was open to him in vision; and being carried beyond himself, he made the aforesaid piercing appeal against their sin.
Stephen, being thus divinely supported, died bearing witness of the godhead and glory of his Master. He averred, that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Consequently he saw him as Isaiah and as Daniel had done, clothed with the glory of the Father. Joh 12:41. This was speaking out, and it was understood as blasphemy; for the doctors stopped their ears, and grinned with their teeth. No matter: Jesus, as Mediator, inherits the glory he had with the Father from eternity; and he shall come again, both in his own glory, as Mediator, and in all the glory of the Father.
But this word standing, may suggest a most consoling idea to the suffering church. In general, Jesus is represented as seated at the Fathers right hand; but here, his servant being ill used, he is represented as rising from his throne to support him, and as ready to receive his spirit, and present it to the Father with exceeding joy. Oh astonishing grace, and unutterable condescension!
Stephen died praying for his enemies, because they might yet be converted, and that would augment his joy and happiness for ever. Here we have the perfection of love: to which St. John seems to allude, when he says, Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of crisis, or judgment, at a human tribunal, because as Christ is, or was, so are we in this world: for Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. Here we have full proof of a martyr delivered from all anger, and from all indwelling sin. His hallowed breast was not stained with a vestige of malice against the worst of foes. Let this comfort us in all our conflicts against the flesh, and let us pray for the mind which was in Christ. Christ is able to give purity of heart, and to make us meet to see God.
Stephen in dying commended his spirit into the hands of Jesus. This is proof that he believed in his godhead and omnipresence. This is proof, full proof that Jesus Christ is Lord both of the living and the dead; and that he is able to save to the uttermost all who come to God by him. Thus the wicked could kill the body only: the soul of the holy martyr was invincible. He this day by a victorious arm wrested the first and one of the fairest crowns of martyrdom, and branded his enemies with the obloquy of eternal shame.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 7:1-16. Abraham and the Patriarchs.The High Priest invites Stephen to plead to the charge. Addressing his audience in the style used by Paul (Act 22:1), Stephen speaks of the theophany to Abraham, placing it, as Philo does, in Mesopotamia before the move to Haran (contrast Gen 11:31; Gen 12:1). The Divine injunction and promise (Act 7:3) are those of Gen 12:1 spoken in Haran. That not a foot-breadth was given Abraham in the land of promise, is taken from Deu 2:5, where another country is in question. The promise (Act 7:5) is from a number of passages (Genesis 12, 13, 17), and that introduced in Act 7:6 is a quotation from Gen 15:13-19, Exo 2:22; Exo 12:40; a stranger in a strange land (Exo 2:22) of Gershom. They shall serve me in this place (Exo 3:12, this mountain). The phrase covenant of circumcision is composed of Gen 17:10 and Gen 17:13; Paul has it in Rom 4:11. For the circumcision of Isaac, see Gen 21:4. The speaker passes quickly on to Joseph, his sale into Egypt and his rise there (cf. Genesis 37-41), with the migration of Jacob and the patriarchs.
Act 7:14. LXX gives the number as 75; Heb. says 70 (Gen 46:27, Deu 10:22).
Act 7:16. In Gen 49:30; Gen 50:13, Jacob is buried at Machpelah, not in Shechem.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
The high priest only asks the question, “Are these things so?” Then God provides room for Stephen to speak without interruption for some time. This stands in striking contrast to the way in which the Lord Jesus was mainly silent before His accusers. Stephen is able in a most masterful way to summarize the whole history of Israel from the viewpoint of God’s many visitations to the nation, yet of Israel’s consistently stubborn refusal of God’s testimony, culminating in their rejection of His Son.
He begins with the personal call of Abraham by the God of glory, a basis all would fully acknowledge, God calling him out from his own kindred as well as his own country to a land not known to him then, but which God would show him. This very fact should have impressed the Jews that God does not always leave men in the circumstances to which they have been accustomed. But Abraham too was slow to respond fully to the call of God at first, only coming to the land after his father had died (v.4).
Also, he was given no actual possession in the land, though it was promised to him, but he was a pilgrim, another salutary lesson for those who claim to be sons of Abraham. God’s sovereign wisdom is impressed on us too in His promising the land to Abraham’s seed at a time that he had no child. Abraham therefore ought not to regard matters from the narrow viewpoint of his then present circumstances. In this too Israel was failing when Stephen spoke.
More than this, God promised, not immediate great blessing, but that Abraham’s seed should be brought under bondage and suffer oppression for four hundred years. There would be long suffering therefore before exaltation. Then the oppressing nation (Egypt) would be judged by God, and Israel eventually brought to serve God in the promised land. The significance of this Israel ought never to have forgotten, just as we today should takes its lessons to heart. We must expect suffering before exaltation.
The covenant of circumcision then given to Abraham (v.8), to be applied to his seed, was a sign that no promise of God could apply to man as he is in the flesh: the flesh must be cut off, to have no part in God’s counsels. Yet the Jews were at Stephen’s time boasting in the mererite of circumcision, in virtual opposition to its significance.
Now Stephen places special emphasis on the twelve sons of Jacob, the immediate father of the twelve tribes. Was theirs an illustrious, beautiful history? Far from it! If Israel desired to boast, let them consider what their fathers did to their own brother Joseph. Moved with envy, they rejected and sold him (v.9). Yet God preserved him and in fact exalted him to a place of great authority in Egypt. Could God not do similarly (or more greatly) in regard to Jesus whom Israel rejected?
God’s sovereignty again shone out in the great famine that caused Joseph’s brothers to journey to Egypt for food. In fact, God would yet bring Israel to such a state of desolation that they too would be virtually forced to look for help to the source which they would find to be none other than the Jesus whom they had crucified. Only the second time, after some real distress and exercise of soul did the brothers have Joseph reveal himself to them (v.13).
The move of Jacob and his family to Egypt introduces a new epoch in Israel’s history, the growth of the nation under circumstances of intense pressure and bondage. Jacob himself died outside the land, his body being carried back for burial, indicating that God still considered it Israel’s land. The burying place had been purchased by Abraham. All of this history was intended to make the Jews consider seriously how God Himself was dealing with them.
God had sworn to Abraham that his seed would be afflicted four hundred years by an oppressive nation, but that He would bring them out with great substance (Gen 15:13-14). As the end of this time drew near a new Pharaoh arose who greatly increased the oppression, commanding the drowning of every boy born to the Israelites. Yet God intervened in this very thing, Moses being born at this time (v.20), a child “lovely in the sight of God” (N.A.S.B.), hidden and nourished by his parents for three months, then adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter. Certainly neither she nor Satan had any idea that this child was ordained of God to be Israel’s deliverer, though the Egyptians unwittingly helped this matter along by training Moses in all their wisdom, he becoming mighty in deeds and words.
It was not by Egyptian wisdom that Moses delivered Israel, but he knew well what he was dealing with when the time came for God to bless him with spiritual power to accomplish such a deliverance. In fact, God was showing Egypt that He could use them to overrule their own decrees in a way that should greatly humble their pride.
At forty years of age (v.23) Moses became concerned about his own brethren, the Jews. This was God’s working in his heart, though in killing an Egyptian who oppressed an Israelite, he was not acting in God’s way. Verse 25 is interesting as to this: he expected the Jews to understand that he was concerned about their deliverance, and that God was actually moving him. But they did not understand, just as Israel did not understand that Jesus would be the great Deliverer of the nation.
Just as Moses was not understood when taking a stand with Israel against their oppressors, so also he was not understood when he sought to restore or promote unity among Israelites. All they could see was selfish motives, and the man who did wrong to his neighbor rudely repulsed Moses with the cutting words, “Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?” His following words, questioning if Moses would kill him as he did the Egyptian, alerted Moses to the fact that his killing the Egyptian was known, and would not be hidden from Egypt’s authorities. He fled the country and became a stranger in a strange land for no short time (v.29). Israel was not ready to be delivered for another forty years, and Moses was required to learn in solitary experience what would eventually fit him for public service.
God’s intervention is again seen in His speaking to Moses from the burning bush. His words caused Moses to tremble. Would Israel not tremble now that God had spoken to them in the person of His Son? Moses’ shoes must be removed as a confession of his own dependent weakness before God. God had seen the affliction of His people, taking full cognizance of all that they endured, and the time had come for His delivering them. Now He was sending Moses to this end, the same Moses whom Israel had refused forty years earlier, saying, “Who made the a ruler and a judge?” How consistently this could be applied too to Israel’s refusal of the Lord Jesus, who will yet be their welcomed Deliverer.
Moses did deliver Israel (v.25 etc.), borne witness to by God’s showing through him many signs and wonders in Egypt first, in the exodus through the Red Sea, and through their amazing sustenance for forty years in the wilderness.
Stephen lays great emphasis on the history of Moses, certainly showing that he had more respect for Moses than the Jews actually did, though they had so boasted in Moses and charged Stephen with blaspheming him. This was the same Moses, he says, who was with the assembly in the wilderness, and through whom, at Mount Sinai, they had received the living oracles, the ten commandments. How had Israel responded to him then? At the very time Moses was receiving the two tables of stone on the mount, Israel was again refusing him and demanding of Aaron some type of gods they could see, putting folly into execution by their making a golden calf, offering sacrifices to it, and taking pleasure in their idolatrous works.
Verses 42 and 43 cover a long space of time, indicating Israel’s persisting in wilful, selfish ways, neglecting in their forty year wilderness history the honest offering to God of their slain beasts and sacrifices. Likely they killed beasts and offered them in sacrifice, but not to God. Later, in the land, they adopted the gods of the dispossessed idolaters, Moloch and Remphan making images of these to worship. Stephen says little more than this about Israel’s history in the land, but adds the solemn warning of God that He would carry them away beyond Babylon, which the Jews knew had been fulfilled in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. This history of rebellion and of God’s often intervening in discipline ought to have taught the Jews to learn by their fathers’ experience.
Stephen has well answered their accusations against him concerning Moses. Now in verse 44 he addresses their charge concerning the holy place. This began with the tabernacle that God ordered Moses to make precisely according to His plain directions. The tabernacle remained as God’s dwelling place among His people when Joshua led them into the land, and until the days of Solomon.
Stephen speaks of the tabernacle continuing till the days of David, who desired to build a temple, but God did not allow him to do this (2Sa 7:5-7), having reserved this honor for Solomon. This was a reminder to the Jews that they did not always have a temple. Was it of greater importance than the God who had brought Israel out of Egypt? Indeed, Israel seemed to think that God was confined to their temple!
Therefore, Stephen’s words now cut right to the heart of the matter. “The Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands” (N.A.S.B.). Also He quotes their own scriptures to clearly indicate this: “Heaven is My throne, and earth is the footstool of My feet: what kind of house will you build for Me? says the Lord: or what place is there for My repose? Was it not My hand which made all these things?” (N.A.S.B.). Is God to be contained in a trifling part of that which His own hands have created? The One who had indisputable rights in regard to the temple had already been rejected and crucified by Israel. How can they speak so piously of the house while rejecting its true owner?
There is no doubt of Stephen’s being directly led of the Spirit of God to speak as he does, including his now solemnly fastening upon Israel the serious guilt of their having always resisted the Holy Spirit: in this regard the nation was now imitating their fathers. His first words in verse 51 are precisely those of many prophets of the Old Testament, “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears.” Stubborn rebellion had been too consistently the character of Israel. They could glory in their literal circumcision, but its significance had no effect on their heart and ears.
He questions as to which of the prophets their fathers had not persecuted. They knew the answer well, but considered themselves free from such guilt, thinking they would not have done this if they had been living then (Mat 23:29-30). But he reminds them that they had just before betrayed and murdered the One of whom all the prophets foretold, “the Just One,” who was in fact Israel’s true Messiah. He adds to this that they had received the law by the disposition of angels (not merely from Moses), and had not kept it.
The truth of Stephen’s charge, which should have subdued the Jews in broken self-judgment, had the effect rather of stirring them to prove his words true in their treatment of yet another prophet of God — himself! As their tempers flare in bitter hostility, however, Stephen looks up steadfastly into heaven. There God reveals to him the majestic sight of the glory of God and Jesus standing on God’s right hand. Wonderful encouragement for this faithful man of God!
He bears witness to this marvellous revelation, the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. His enemies, defeated as they know they are, can only resort to the folly of stopping their ears and violently silencing the witness of God. The Romans denied the Jews the right to execute capital punishment, but on this occasion the Jews took advantage of the absence of the Roman governor from Jerusalem at the time; and Stephen was murdered without any trial, taken outside the city and stoned to death. A young man named Saul is mentioned as the custodian of the clothes of the witnesses of Stephen’s death.
His words at the end are beautifully similar to those of the Lord Jesus at His death, but it is the Lord Jesus to whom he prays “receive my spirit.” What calm, blessed victory of faith is this! Then, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” Wonderful grace indeed, so like the words of his Master on the cross. But Stephen cannot say, “they know not what they do;” for the Jews now had an unmistakable witness to the resurrection of Christ in the powerful ministry of the Spirit of God, and they deliberately rejected it. They had refused Christ as the Man of sorrows on earth: now they refuse Him as glorified by God in heaven. “Much more shall not we escape if we turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven” (Heb 12:25). We are told simply of Stephen that “he fell asleep,” for the sting of death had been taken away by the death of His Lord: now death for the believer is merely “sleep.”
This is a great turning point in the book of Acts. Israel has publicly, positively refused the appeal of Spirit of God to reconsider their rejection of Christ. The gospel therefore is to go to the regions beyond, and that nation as such meanwhile has been given up to a state of sad desolation.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
7:1 Then {1} said the high priest, Are these things so?
(1) Steven is allowed to plead his cause, but for this reason and purpose, that under a disguise and pretence of the Law he might be condemned.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The "high priest" probably refers to Caiaphas, the official high priest then, but possibly Luke meant Annas (cf. Act 4:6). [Note: See my comments on 5:6.] Jesus had stood before both these men separately to face similar charges (Joh 18:13-14; Joh 18:24; Mat 26:57). This was the third time that Christian leaders had defended their preaching before the Sanhedrin that Luke recorded in Acts (cf. Act 4:15; Act 5:27).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
14
Chapter 15
ST. STEPHENS DEFENCE AND THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
Act 6:12-14; Act 7:1-2
ST. STEPHEN and St. Philip are the two prominent names among the primitive deacons. Stephen, however, much surpasses Philip. Devout expositors of Scripture have recognised in his name a prophecy of his greatness. Stephen is Stephanos, a garland or crown, in the Greek language. Garlands or crowns were given by the ancient Greeks to those who rendered good services to their cities, or brought fame to them by winning triumphs in the great national games. And Stephen had his name divinely chosen for him by that Divine Providence which ordereth all things, because he was to win in the fulness of time an imperishable garland, and to gain a crown of righteousness, and to render highest services to the Church of God by his teaching and by his testimony even unto death. St. Stephen had a Greek name, and must have belonged to the Hellenistic division of the Jewish nation. He evidently directed his special energies to their conversion, for while the previous persecutions had been raised by the Sadducees, as the persons whose prejudices had been assailed, the attack on Stephen was made by the Grecian Jews of the synagogues belonging to the Libertines or freedmen, in union with those from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia. The Libertines had been slaves, Jewish captives, taken in the various wars waged by the Romans. They had been dispersed among the Romans at Rome and elsewhere. There in their captivity they had learned the Greek language and become acquainted with Greek culture; and now, when they had recovered their freedom through that suppleness and power of adaptation which the Jewish race has ever displayed, they returned to Jerusalem in such numbers that a synagogue of the Libertines was formed. Their captivity and servitude had, however, only intensified their religious feelings, and made them more jealous of any attempts to extend to the Gentiles who had held them captives the spiritual possessions they alone enjoyed. There is, indeed, an extremely interesting parallel to the case of the Libertines in early English history, as told by Bede. The Saxons came to England in the fifth century and conquered the Christian Celts, whom they drove into Wales. The Celts, however, avenged themselves upon their conquerors, for they refused to impart to the Pagan Saxons the glad tidings of salvation which the Celts possessed. But the Libertines were not the only assailants of St. Stephen. With them were joined members of synagogues connected with various other important Jewish centres. Jerusalem was then somewhat like Rome at the present time. It was the one city whither a race scattered all over the world and speaking every language tended. Each language was represented by a synagogue, just as there are English Colleges and Irish Colleges and Spanish Colleges at Rome, where Roman Catholics of those nationalities find themselves specially at home. Among these Hellenistic antagonists of St. Stephen we have mention made of the men of Cilicia. Here, doubtless, was found a certain Saul of Tarsus, enthusiastic in defence of the ancient faith, and urgent with all his might to bring to trial the apostate who had dared to speak words which he considered derogatory of the city and temple of the great king.
Saul, indeed, may have been the great agent in Stephens arrest. It is a nature and an intellect like his that can discern the logical results of teaching like St. Stephens, and then found an accusation upon the deductions he makes rather than upon the actual words spoken. Saul may have placed the Church under another obligation on this occasion. To him may be due the report of the speech made by Stephen before the Sanhedrin. Indeed, it is to St. Paul in his unconverted state we feel inclined to attribute the knowledge which St. Luke possessed of the earlier proceedings of the council in the matter of the Christians. After St. Pauls conversion we get no such details concerning the deliberations of the Sanhedrin as we do in the earlier chapters of the Acts, simply because Saul of Tarsus, the rising champion and hope of the Pharisees, was present at the earlier meetings and had access to their inmost secrets, while at the later meetings he never appeared save to stand his trial as an accused person. The question, How was Stephens speech preserved? has been asked by some critics who wished to decry the historic truth of this narrative, and to represent the whole thing as a fancy sketch or romance, worked up on historic lines indeed, but still only a romance, written many years after the events had happened. Critics who ask this forget what modern research has shown in another department. The “Acts” of the martyrs are sometimes very large documents, containing reports of charges, examinations, and speeches of considerable length. These have often been considered mere fancy history, the work of mediaeval monks wishing to celebrate the glory of these early witnesses for truth, and sceptical writers have often put them aside without bestowing even a passing notice upon them.
Modern investigation has taken these documents, critically investigated them, compared them with the Roman criminal law, and has come to the conclusion that they are genuine, affording some of the most interesting and important examples of ancient methods of legal procedure anywhere to be found. How did the Christians get these records? it may be asked. Various hints, given here and there, enable us to see. Bribery of the officials was sometimes used. The notaries, shorthand writers, and clerks attendant upon a Roman court were numerous, and were always accessible to the gifts of the richer Christians when they wished to obtain a correct narrative of a martyrs last trial. Secret Christians among the officials also effected something, and there were numerous other methods by which the Roman judicial records became the property of the Church, to be in time transmitted to the present age. Now just the same may have been the case with the trials of the primitive Christians, and specially of St. Stephen. But we know that St. Paul was there. Memory among the Jews was sharpened to an extraordinary degree. We have now no idea to what an extent human memory was then developed. The immense volumes which are filled with the Jewish commentaries on Scripture were in those times transmitted from generation to generation, simply by means of this power. It was considered, indeed, a great innovation when those commentaries were committed to writing instead of being intrusted to tradition. It is no wonder then that St. Paul could afford his disciple, St. Luke, a report of what Stephen said on this occasion, even if he had not preserved any notes whatsoever of the process of the trial. Let us, however, turn to the consideration of St. Stephens speech, omitting any further notice of objections based on our own ignorance of the practices and methods of distant ages.
I. The defence of St. Stephen was a speech delivered by a Jew, and addressed to a Jewish audience. This is our first remark, and it is an important one. We are apt to judge the Scriptures, their speeches, arguments, and discussions, by a Western standard, forgetting that Orientals argued then and argue still not according to the rules of logic taught by Aristotle, nor by the methods of eloquence derived from the traditions of Cicero and Quinctilian, but by methods and rules essentially different. What would satisfy Westerns would have seemed to them utterly worthless, just as an argument which now seems pointless and weak appeared to them absolutely conclusive. Parallels, analogies, parables, mystical interpretations were then favourite methods of argument, and if we wish to understand writers like the authors of the scriptural books we must strive to place ourselves at their point of view, or else we shall miss their true interpretation. Let us apply this idea to St. Stephens defence, which has been often depreciated because treated as if it were an oration addressed to a Western court or audience. Erasmus, for instance, was an exceedingly learned man, who lived at the period of the Reformation. He was well skilled in Latin and Greek learning, but knew nothing of Jewish. ideas. He hesitates not, therefore, to say in his Annotations on this passage that there are many things in Stephens speech which have no-bearing on the question at issue; while Michaelis, another German writer of great repute in the: earlier days of this century, remarks that there are many things in this oration of which we cannot perceive the tendency, as regards the accusation brought against the martyr. Let us examine and see if the case be not otherwise, remembering that promise of the Master, given not to supersede human exertion or to indulge human laziness, but given to support and sustain and safeguard His persecuted servants under circumstances like those amid which Stephen found himself. “But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.” What, then, was the charge brought against Stephen? He was accused of “speaking blasphemous words against Moses, and against God,” or, to put it in the formal language used by the witnesses, “We have heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us.” Now Stephen, if merely a man of common sense, must have intended to reply, to this indictment. Some critics, as we have just noted, think that he failed effectually to do so. We are indeed often in great danger of paying too much attention and lending too great weight to objections of this kind urged by persons who assume to themselves the office of critics; and to counteract this tendency perhaps it is as well to note that a leading German writer of a rationalistic type, named Zeller, who has written a work to decry the historical character of the Acts, finds in St. Stephens words an oration “not only characteristic, but also better suited to the case and to the accusation raised against him than is usually supposed.”
Disregarding, then, all cavils of critics whose views are mutually destructive, let us see if we cannot discern in this narrative the marks of a sound and powerful mind, guided, aided, and directed by the Spirit of God which dwelt so abundantly in him. St. Stephen was accused of irreverence towards Moses and hostility towards the temple, and towards all the Jewish institutions. How did he meet this? He begins his address to the Sanhedrin at the earliest period of their national history, and shows how the chosen people had passed through many changes and developments without interfering with their essential identity amid these changes. His opponents now made idols of their local institutions and of the buildings of the temple, but Gods choice and Gods promise had originally nothing local about them at all. Abraham, their great father, was first called by God in Ur of the Chaldees, far away across the desert in distant Mesopotamia. Thence he removed to Charran, and then, only after the lapse of years, became a wanderer up and down in Canaan, where he never possessed so much of the land as he could set his foot upon. The promises of God and the covenant of grace were personal things, made to Gods chosen children, not connected with lands or buildings or national customs. He next takes up the case of Moses. He had been accused of blasphemy and irreverence towards the great national law-giver. His words prove that he entertained no such feelings; he respected and revered Moses just as much as his opponents and accusers did. But Moses had nothing to say or do with Canaan, or Jerusalem, or the temple. Nay, rather, his work for the chosen people was alone in Egypt and in Midian and on the side of Horeb, where the presence and name of Jehovah were manifested not in the temple or tabernacle, but in the bush burning yet not consumed.
The Grecian Jews accused Stephen of irreverence towards Moses. But how had their forefathers treated that Moses whom he recognised as a divinely-sent messenger? “They thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt.” Moses, however, led them onward and upward. His motto was hope. His rod and his voice ever pointed forward. He warned them that his own ministry was not the final one; that it was only an intermediate and temporary institution, till the prophet should come unto whom the people should hearken. There was a chosen people before the customs introduced by Moses. There may therefore be a chosen people still when these customs cease, having fulfilled their purpose. The argument of St. Stephen in this passage is the same as that of St. Paul in the fourth-chapter of Galatians, where he sets forth the temporary and intermediate character of the Levitical law and of the covenant of circumcision. So teaches St. Stephen in his speech. His argument is simply this:-I have been accused of speaking blasphemous words against Moses because I proclaimed that a greater Prophet than he had come, and yet this was only what Moses himself had foretold. It is not I who have blasphemed and opposed Moses: it is my accusers rather. But then he remembers that the accusation dealt not merely with Moses. It went farther, and accused him of speaking blasphemous words against the national sanctuary, “saying that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place.”
This leads him to speak of the temple. His argument now takes a different turn, and runs thus. This building is now the centre of Jewish thoughts and affections. But it is a mere modern thing, as compared with the original choice and promise of God. There was no chosen dwelling-place of the Almighty in the earliest days of all; His presence was then manifested wherever His chosen servants dwelt. Then Moses made a tent or tabernacle, which abode in no certain spot, but moved hither and thither. Last of all, long after Abraham, and long after Moses, and even after David, Solomon built God a house. Even when it was built, and in all its original glory, even then the temporary character of the temple was clearly recognised by the prophet Isaiah, who had long ago, in his sixty-sixth chapter, proclaimed the truth which had been brought forward as an accusation against himself: “Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool; what house will ye build Me, saith the Lord, or what is the place of My rest? Hath not My hand made all these things?”-a great spiritual truth which had been anticipated long before Isaiah by King Solomon, in his famous dedication prayer at the opening of the temple: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house that I have builded.” {1Ki 8:27} After St. Stephen had set forth this undeniable truth confirmed by the words of Isaiah, which to the Pharisaic portion of his audience, at least, must have seemed conclusive, there occurs a break in the address.
One would have thought that he would then have proceeded to describe the broader and more spiritual life which had shone forth for mankind in Christ, and to expound the freedom from all local restrictions which should henceforth belong to acceptable worship of the Most High. Most certainly, if the speech had been invented for him and placed in his mouth, a forger would naturally have designed a fuller and more balanced discourse, setting forth the doctrine of Christ as well as the past history of the Jews. We cannot tell whether he actually entered more fully into the subject or not. Possibly the Sadducean portion of his audience had got quite enough. Their countenances and gestures bespoke their horror of St. Stephens doctrine. Isaiahs opinion carried no weight with them as contrasted with the institutions of Moses, which were their pride and glory; and so, borne along by the force of his oratory, St. Stephen finished with that vigorous denunciation which led to his death: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” This exposition of St. Stephens speech will show the drift and argument of it as it appears to us. But it must have seemed to them much more powerful, plain-spoken, and aggressive. He vindicated himself to any right-thinking and fair mind from the accusation of irreverence towards God, towards Moses, or towards the Divine institutions. But the minds of his hearers were not fair. He had trampled upon their prejudices, he had suggested the vanity of their dearest ideas, and they could not estimate his reasons or follow his arguments, but they could resort to the remedy which every failing, though for the present popular, cause possesses-they could destroy him. And thus they treated the modern as their ancestors had treated the ancient prophets. What a lesson Stephens speech has for the Church of every age! How wide and manifold the applications of it! The Jewish error is one that is often committed, their mistake often repeated. The Jews identified Gods honour and glory with an old order that was fast passing away, and had no eyes to behold a new and more glorious order that was opening upon them. We may blame them then for their murder of St. Stephen, but we must blame them gently, feeling that they acted as human nature has ever acted under similar circumstances, and that good motives were mingled with those feelings of rage and bigotry and narrowness that urged them to their deed of blood. Let us see how this was. Stephen proclaimed a new order and a new development, embracing for his hearers a vast political as well as a vast religious change. His forecast of the future swept away at once all the privileges and profits connected with the religious position of Jerusalem, and thus destroyed the political prospects of the Jewish people. It is no wonder the Sanhedrin could not appreciate his oration. Men do not ever listen patiently when their pockets are being touched, their profits swept away, their dearest hopes utterly annihilated. Has not human experience often repeated the scene acted out that day in Jerusalem? On the political stage men have often seen it, -we ourselves have seen it. The advocates of liberty, civil and religious, have had to struggle against the same spirit and the same prejudices as St. Stephen. Take the political world alone. We now look back and view with horror the deeds wrought in the name of authority and in opposition to the principles of change and innovation. We read the stories of Alva and the massacres in the Netherlands, the bloody deeds of the seventeenth century in England and all over Europe, the miseries and the bloodshed of the American war of independence, the fierce opposition with which the spirit of liberty has been resisted throughout this century; and our sympathies are altogether ranged on the side of the sufferers, -the losers and defeated, it may have been, for the time, but the triumphant in the long run.
The true student, however, of history or of human nature will not content himself with any one-sided view, and he will have some sympathy to spare for those who adopted the stern measures. He will not judge them too harshly. They reverenced the past as the Jews of Jerusalem did, and reverence is a feeling that is right and blessed. It is no good sign for this age of ours that it possesses so little reverence for the past, thinks so lightly of the institutions, the wisdom, the ideas of antiquity, and is ready to change them at a moments notice. The men who now are held up to the execration of posterity, the high priest and the Sanhedrin who murdered Stephen, the tyrants and despots and their agents who strove to crush the supporters of liberty, the writers who cried them down and applauded or urged on the violent measures which were adopted and sometimes triumphed for the time, -we should strive to put ourselves in their position, and see what they had to say for themselves, and thus seek to judge them here below as the Eternal King will judge them at the great final tribunal. They knew the good which the old political institutions had worked. They had lived and flourished under them as their ancestors had lived and flourished before them. The future they knew not. All they knew was that changes were proposed which threatened everything with which their dearest memories were bound up, and the innovators seemed dangerous creatures, obnoxious to God and man, and they dealt with them accordingly.
So it has been and still is in politics. The opponents of political change are sometimes denounced in the fiercest language, as if they were morally wicked. The late Dr. Arnold seems a grievous offender in this respect. No one can read his charming biography by Dean Stanley without recognising how intolerant he was towards his political opponents; how blind he was to those good motives which inspire the timorous, the ignorant, and the aged, when brought face to face with changes which appear to them thickly charged with the most dangerous results. Charity towards opponents is sadly needed in the political as well as in the religious world. And as it has been in politics so has it been in religion. Men reverence the past, and that reverence easily glides into an idolatry blind to its defects and hostile to any improvement. It is in religion too as in politics; a thousand other interests-money, office, expectations, memories of the loved and lost – are bound up with old religious forms, and then when the prophet arises with his Divine message, as Stephen arose before the Sanhedrin, the ancient proverb is fulfilled, the corruption of the best becomes the worst, the good motives mingle with the evil, and are used by the poor human heart to justify the harshest, most unchristian deeds done in defence of what men believe to he the cause of truth and righteousness. Let us be just and fair to the aggressors as well as to the aggrieved, to the persecutors as well as to the persecuted. But let us all the same take good heed to learn for ourselves the lessons this narrative presents. Reverence is a good thing, and a blessed thing; and without reverence no true progress, either in political or spiritual things, can be made. But reverence easily degenerates into blind superstitious idolatry. It was so with the Sanhedrin, it was so at the Reformation, it has ever been so with the opponents of true religious progress. Let us evermore strive to keep minds free, open, unbiassed, respecting the past, yet ready to listen to the voice and fresh revelations of Gods will and purposes made to us by the messengers whom He chooses as He pleases. Perhaps there was never an age which needed this lesson of Stephens speech and its reception more than our own. The attitude of religious men towards science and its numerous and wondrous advances needs guidance such as this incident affords. The Sanhedrin had their own theory and interpretation of Gods dealings in the past. They clung to it passionately, and refused the teaching of Stephen, who would have widened their views, and shown them that a grand and noble development was quite in accordance with all the facts in the case, and indeed a necessary result of the sacred history when truly expounded! What a parable and picture of the future we here find! What a warning as to the attitude religious men should take up with respect to the progress of science! Patience, intellectual and religious patience, is taught us. The Sanhedrin were impatient of St. Stephens views, which they could not understand, and their impatience made them lose a blessing and commit a sin. Now has it not been at times much the same with ourselves? Fifty or sixty years ago men were frightened at the revelations of geology, -they had their own interpretations of the past and of the Scriptures, -just as three centuries ago men were frightened at the revelations and teaching of modern astronomy. Prejudiced and narrow men then strove to hound down the teachers of the new science, and would, if they could, have destroyed them in the name of God. Patience, here, however, has done its work and has had its reward. The new revelations have been taken up and absorbed by the Church of Christ. Men have learned to distinguish between their own interpretations of religion and of religious documents on the one hand and the religion itself on the other. The old, human, narrow, prejudiced interpretations have been modified. That which could be shaken and was untrue has passed away, while that which cannot be shaken has remained.
The lesson taught us by these instances of astronomy and geology, ought not to be thrown away. Patience is again necessary for the Christian and for the scientist alike. New facts are every day coming to light, but it requires much time and thought to bring new facts and old truths into their due correlation, to look round and about them. The human mind is at best very small and weak. It is blind, and cannot see afar off, and it is only by degrees it can grasp truth in its fulness. A new fact, for instance, discovered by science may appear at first plainly contradictory to some old truth revealed in Scripture. But even so, we should not lose our patience or our hope taught us by this chapter. What new fact of science can possibly seem more contradictory to any old truth of the Creeds than St. Stephens teaching about the universal character of Gods promise and the freeness of acceptable worship must have seemed when compared with the Divine choice of the temple at Jerusalem? They appeared to the Sanhedrins ideas mutually destructive, though now we see them to have been quite consistent one with another. Let this historic retrospect support us when our faith is tried. Let us welcome every new fact and new revelation brought by science, and then, if they seem opposed to something we know to be true in religion, let us wait in confidence, begotten of past experience, that God in His own good time will clear up for His faithful people that which now seems difficult of comprehension. Patience and confidence, then, are two lessons much needed in this age, which St. Stephens speech and its reception bring home to our hearts.
II. We have now spoken of the general aspect of the discourse, and the broad counsels we may gather from it. There are some other points, however, points of detail as distinguished from wider views, upon which we would fix our attention. They too will be found full of guidance and full of instruction. Let us take them in the order in which they appear in St. Stephens address. The mistakes and variations which undoubtedly occur in it are well worthy of careful attention, and have much teaching necessary for these times. There are three points in which Stephen varies from the language of the Old Testament. In the fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter Stephen speaks thus: “Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls”; while, if we turn to the Pentateuch, we shall find that the number of the original Hebrew immigrants is placed three times over at seventy, or threescore and ten, that is in Gen 46:2; Gen 46:7, Exo 1:5, and Deu 10:22. This, however, is only a comparatively minor point. The Septuagintor Greek version of the Pentateuch reads seventy-five in the first of these passages, making the sons of Joseph born in Egypt to have been nine persons, and thus completing the number seventy-five, at which it fixes the roll of the males who came with Jacob. The next two verses, the fifteenth and sixteenth, contain a much more serious mistake. They run thus:-“So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmot the father of Sychem.” Now here there occur several grave errors. Jacob was not carried over and buried at Sychem at all, but at the cave of Machpelah, as is plainly stated in Gen 50:13. Again, a plot of ground at Sychem was certainly bought, not by Abraham, however, but by Jacob. Abraham bought the field and cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite. Jacob bought his plot at Sychem from the sons of Emmor. There are in these verses, then, two serious historical mistakes; first as to the true burial-place of Jacob, and then as to the purchaser of the plot of ground at Sychem. Yet, again, there is a third mistake in the forty-third verse, where, when quoting a denunciation of Jewish idolatry from Amo 5:25-26, he quotes the prophet as threatening, “I will carry you away beyond Babylon,” whereas the prophet did say, “Therefore I will cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus.” St. Stephen substituted Babylon for Damascus, two cities between which several hundred miles intervened. I have stated the difficulty thus as strongly as possible, because I think that, instead of constituting a difficulty, they are a real source of living help and comfort, as well as a great practical confirmation of the story. Let us take this last point first. I say that these mistakes, admitted mistakes which I make no vain attempt to explain away, constitute a confirmation of the story as given in the Acts against modern rationalistic opponents. It is a favourite theme of many of these writers that the Acts of the Apostles is a mere piece of fancy history, a historical romance composed in the second century for the purpose of reconciling the adherents of St. Paul, or the Gentile Christians, with the followers of St. Peter, or the Jewish Christians.; The persons who uphold this view fix the date of the Acts in the earlier half of the second century, and teach that the speeches and addresses were composed by the author of the book and put into the mouths of the reputed speakers. Now, in the mistake made by St. Stephen, we have a refutation of this theory. Surely any man composing a speech to put into the mouth of one of his favourite heroes and champions would not have represented him as making such grave errors when addressing the supreme Jewish senate. A man might easily make any of these slips which I have noticed in the heat of an oration, and they might have even passed unnoticed, as every speaker who has much practice in addressing the public still makes precisely the same kind of mistake. But a romancer, sitting down to forge speeches suitable to the time and place, would never have put in the mouth of his lay figures grave errors about the most elementary facts of Jewish history. We conclude, then, that the inaccuracies reported as made by St. Stephen are evidences of the genuine character of the oration attributed to him. Then again we see in these mistakes a guarantee of the honesty and accuracy of the reports of the speech. The other day I read the objections of a critic to our Gospels. He wished to know, for instance, how the addresses of our Lord could have been preserved in an age when there was no shorthand. The answer is, however, simple enough, and conclusive: there was shorthand in that age. Shorthand was then carried to such perfection that an epigram of Martial (14:208), a contemporary poet, celebrating its triumphs may be thus translated:-
“Swift though the words, the pen still swifter sped; The hand has finished ere the tongue has said.”
While even if the Jews knew nothing of shorthand, the human memory, as we have already noted, was then developed to a degree of which we have no conception. Now, whether transmitted by memory or by notes, this address of St. Stephen bears proofs of the truthfulness of the reporter in the mistakes it contains. A man anxious for the reputation of his hero would have corrected them, as parliamentary reporters are accustomed to make the worst speeches readable, correcting evident blunders, and improving the grammar. The reporter of St. Stephens words, on the contrary, gave them to us just as they were spoken. But then, I may be asked, how do you account for St. Stephens mistake? What explanation can you offer? My answer is simple and plain enough. I have no other explanation to offer except that they are mistakes such as a speaker, filled with his subject, and speaking to an excited and hostile audience, might naturally make; mistakes such as truthful speakers every day make in their ordinary efforts. Every man who speaks an extemporaneous discourse such as Stephens was, full of references to past history, is liable to such errors. Even when the memory retains the facts most accurately, the tongue is apt to make such lapses. Let a number of names be mingled up together in a speech or sermon where frequent mention has to be made of one now and of another again, how easily in that case a speaker substitutes one for another. But it may be objected that it is declared of Stephen that he was “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,” that “he was full of faith and power,” and that his adversaries “were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spake.” But surely this might be said of able, devoted, and holy men at the present day, and yet no one would say that they were miraculously kept from the most trivial mistakes, and that their memories and tongues were so supernaturally aided that they were preserved from the smallest verbal inaccuracies. We are always inclined to reverse the true scientific method of inquiry, and to form notions as to what inspiration must mean, instead of asking what, as a matter of fact, inspiration did mean and involve in the case of the Bible heroes. People when they feel offended by these mistakes of St. Stephen prove that they really think that Christianity was quite a different thing in the apostolic days from what it is now, and that the words “full of the Holy Ghost” and the presence of the Divine Spirit meant quite a different gift and blessing then from what they imply at the present time. I look upon the mistakes in this speech in quite a different light. St. Luke, in recording them exactly as they took place, proves, not merely his honesty as a narrator, but he also has handed down to us a most important lesson. He teaches us to moderate our notions and to hasten our a priori expectations. He shows us we must come and study the Scriptures to learn what they mean by the gift and power of the Holy Spirit. St. Luke expressly tells us that Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, and then proceeds to narrate certain verbal inaccuracies and certain slips of memory to prove to us that the presence of the Holy Ghost does not annihilate human nature, or supersede the exercise of the human faculties. Just as in other places we find Apostles like St. Peter or St. Paul spoken of as equally inspired, and yet the inspiration enjoyed by them did not destroy their human weakness and infirmities, and, full of the Holy Ghost as they were, St. Paul could wax wroth and engage in bitter dissension with Barnabas, his fellow-labourer; and St. Peter could fall into hypocrisy against which his brother Apostle had publicly to protest. It is wonderful how liable the mind is, m matters of religion, to embrace exactly the same errors age after age, manifesting themselves in different shapes. Men are ever inclined to form their theories beforehand, and then to test Gods actions and the course of His Providence by those theories, instead of reversing the order, and testing their theories by facts as God reveals them. This error about the true theory of inspiration and the gifts of the Holy Ghost which Protestants have fallen into is exactly the same as two celebrated mistakes, one in ancient, the other in modern times. The Eutychian heresy was very celebrated in the fifth century. It split the Eastern Church into two parts, and prepared the way for the triumph of Mahometanism. It fell, too, into this same error. It formed a a priori theory of God and His nature. It determined that it was impossible for the nature of Deity to be united to a nature which could feel hunger and thirst and weakness, because that God cannot be affected by any human weakness or wants. It denied, therefore, the real humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ and the reality of His human life and actions; teaching that His human body was not real, but merely a phenomenal or apparent one, and then explaining away all the statements and facts of Gospel history which seemed to them to conflict with their own private theory. In the West we have had ourselves experience of the same erroneous method of argument. The adherents of the Church of Rome argue for the infallibility of the Pope in the same way. They dilate on the awful importance of religious truth, and the fearful consequences of a mistake in such matters. Hence they conclude that it is only natural and fitting that a living, speaking, teaching, infallible guide should be appointed by God to direct the Church, and thence they conclude the infallibility of the Pope; a method of argument which has been amply exposed by Dr. Salmon in his work on the Infallibility of the Church. The Roman Catholics form their theory first, and when they come to facts which conflict with their theory, they deny them or explain them away in the most extraordinary manner.
Protestants themselves, however, are subject to the same erroneous methods. They form a theory about the Holy Ghost and His operations. They conclude, as is true, that He is Himself right and just and true in all His doings, and then they conclude that all the men whom He chose in the earliest age of the Church, and who are mentioned in Scripture as endued with His grace, must have been as free from every form of error as the Holy Spirit Himself. They thus fashion for themselves a mere a priori theory like the Eutychian and the Romanist, and then, when they apply their theory to passages like St. Stephens speech, they feel compelled to deny facts and offer forced explanations, and to reject Gods teaching as it is embodied in the divinely taught lessons of history. Let us be honest, fearless students of the Scriptures. St. Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, and as such his great, broad, spiritual lessons were taught by the Spirit, and commend themselves as Divine teaching to every Christian heart. But these lessons were given through human lips, and had to be conveyed through human faculties, and as such are not free from the imperfections which attach themselves to everything human here below. Surely it is just the same still. God the Holy Ghost dwells with His people as of old. There are men, even in this age, of whom it still may be said, that in a special sense “they are full of the Holy Ghost,” a blessing granted in answer to faithful prayer and devout communion and a life lived closely with God. The Holy Spirit speaks through them and in them. Their sermons, even on the simplest topics, speak with power, they teem with spiritual unction, they come home with conviction to the human conscience. Yet surely no one would dream of saying that these men are free from slips of speech and lapses of memory in their extemporaneous addresses, or in their private instructions, or in their written letters, because the Holy Ghost thus proves His presence and His power in His people as of old. The human heart and conscience easily and at once distinguish between that which is due to human weakness and what to Divine grace, according to that most pregnant saying of an Apostle himself gifted above all others, “We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us.” This view may be startling to some persons who have been accustomed to look to the Bible as some persons look to the Pope, as an oracle which will give them infallible guidance on every topic without the exercise of any thought or intelligence on their own part. Yet it is no original or novel notion of my own, but one that has been luminously set forth by a devout expositor of Scripture, dealing with this very passage many years ago. Dr. Vaughan, in his lectures on the Acts, preaching at Doncaster when vicar of that place, thus states his conclusions on this point:-“Now I will address one earnest word to persons who may have noticed with anxiety in this chapter, or who may have heard it noticed by others in a tone of cavil or disbelief, that in one or two minor points the account here given of Jewish history seems to vary from that contained in the narrative of the Old Testament. For example, the history of the book of Genesis tells us that the burying-place bought by Abraham was in Mamre or Hebron, not at Sychem; and that it was bought by him of Ephron the Hittite, Jacob (not Abraham) being the purchaser of the ground at Shechem of the sons of Hamor, Shechems father. My friends, can you really suppose that a difference of this nature has anything to do, this way or that, with the substantial truth of the gospel revelation? I declare to you that I would not waste the time in endeavouring (if I was able) to reconcile such a variance. It is to be regretted that Christian persons, in their zeal for the literal accuracy of our Holy Book, have spoken and written as if they thought that anything could possibly depend upon such a question. We all know how easy it is to get two witnesses in a court of justice to give their stories of an occurrence in the same words. We know also how instant is the suspicion of falsehood which that formal coincidence of statement brings upon them. Holy Scripture shows what I may indeed call a noble superiority to all such uniformity. Each book of our Bible is an independent witness; shown to be so, not least, by verbal or even actual differences on some trifling points of detail. And they who drink most deeply at the fountain head of Divine truth learn to estimate these things in the same manner; to feel what we might describe as a lordly disdain for all infidel objections drawn from this sort of petty, paltry, cavilling, carping, creeping criticism. Let our faith at last, God helping us, be strong enough and decided enough to override a few or a multitude of such objections. We will hear them unmoved; we will fearlessly examine them; if we cannot resolve them, then, in the power of a more majestic principle, we will calmly turn from them and pass them by. What we know not now, we may know hereafter; and if we never know we will believe still.” These are wise words, very wholesome, very practical, and very helpful in this present age.
III. Let us briefly gather yet another lesson from this passage. The declaration of the Churchs catholicity and the universal nature of Christian worship contained in verses 47-50 {Act 7:47-50} deserve our attention. What did St. Stephen say?-“But Solomon built Him a house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands; as saith the prophet, The heaven is My throne, and the earth the footstool of My feet; what manner of house will ye build Me? saith the Lord; or what is the place of My rest? Did not My hand make all these things?” These words must have sounded as very extraordinary and very revolutionary in Jewish ears, because they most certainly struck at the root of the exclusive privilege claimed for Jerusalem, that it was the one place upon earth where acceptable worship could be offered, and where the Divine presence could be manifested. It seems no wonder that they should have aroused the Sanhedrin to the pitch of fury which ended in the orators judicial murder. But these words have been at times pressed farther than Stephen intended. He merely wished to teach that Gods special and covenanted presence was not for the future to be limited to Jerusalem. In the new dispensation of the Messiah whom he preached, that special covenanted presence would be found everywhere. Where two or three should be gathered in Christs name there would Gods presence be found. These words of Stephen have sometimes been quoted as if they sounded the death-knell of special places dedicated to the honour and glory of God, such as churches are. It is evident, however, that they have no such application. They sounded the death-knell of the exclusive privilege of one place, the temple, but they proclaimed the freedom which the Church has ever since claimed, and the Jewish Church of the dispersion, by the institution of synagogues, had led the way in claiming; teaching that wherever true hearts and true worshippers are found, there God reveals Himself. But we must bear in mind a distinction. Stephen and the Apostles rejected the exclusive right of the Temple as the one place of worship for the world. They asserted the right to establish special places of worship throughout the world. They rejected the exclusive claims of Jerusalem. But they did not reject the right and the duty of Gods people to assemble themselves as a collective body for public worship, and to realise Christs covenanted presence. This is an important limitation of St. Stephens statement. The absolute duty of public collective worship of the Almighty cannot be too strongly insisted upon. Men neglect it, and they support themselves by an appeal to St. Stephens words, which have nothing to do with public worship more than with private worship. The Jews imagined that both public and private worship offered in the Temple had some special blessing attached, because a special presence of God was there granted. St. Stephen attacked this prejudice. His words must, however, be limited to the exact point he was then dealing with, and must not be pressed farther. Private prayer was binding on all Gods people in the new and freer dispensation, and so, too, public worship has a special covenant blessing attached to it, and the blessing cannot be obtained if people neglect the duty. Public worship has been by Protestants looked at too much, as if it were only a means of their own edification, and thus, when they have thought that such edification could be as well or better attained at home, by reading a better sermon than they might chance to hear in the public congregation, they have excused their absence to their own conscience. But public worship is much more than a means of edification. It is the payment of a debt of worship, praise, and adoration due by the creature to the Creator. In that duty personal edification finds a place, but a mere accidental and subsidiary place. The great end of public worship is worship, not hearing, not edification even, though edification follows as a necessary result of such public worship when sincerely offered. The teaching of St. Stephen did not then apply to the erection of churches and buildings set apart for Gods service, or to the claim made for public worship as an exercise with a peculiar Divine promise annexed. It simply protests against any attempt to localise the Divine presence to one special spot on earth, making it and it alone the centre of all religious interest. St. Stephens words are indeed but a necessary result of the ascension of Christ as we have already expounded its expediency. Had Christ remained on earth, His personal presence would have rendered the Church a mere local and not a universal institution; just as the doctrine of Roman Catholics about the Pope as Christs Vicar, and Rome as his appointed seat, has so far invested Rome with somewhat of the characteristics of Jerusalem and the Temple. But our Lord ascended up on high that the hearts and minds of His people might likewise ascend to that region where, above time and sense and change, their Master evermore dwells, as the loadstone which secretly draws their hearts, and guides their tempest tossed spirits across the stormy waters of this world to the haven of everlasting rest.