Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 7:15
So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers,
15. So Jacob went down into Egypt ] Now the whole race whom God had chosen to Himself was in Egypt, away from the land of promise, and remained there for a long period, yet God was with them in their exile, and His worship was preserved for the whole time. This seems the point which Stephen desires to emphasize by so frequent a repetition of the words “into Egypt.”
and died, he, and our fathers ] Better, and he died, himself, and our fathers. Of the transportation of the bodies of the patriarchs to Canaan we have no record in Holy Writ. Josephus ( Antiq. ii. 8. 2) says “the posterity and sons of these men, after some time, carried their bodies and buried them at Hebron.” In the discussion of Exo 13:19, Carry up my bones away hence with you, it is said ( Mechilta, ed. Weiss, 1865, Vienna, 8vo p. 30) that the bodies of the patriarchs were carried out of Egypt with the returning Israelites, and it is argued that this is implied in the expression with you, which Moses quotes as uttered by Joseph, who must have known that his brethren to whom he was speaking would all be dead before the Exodus. Therefore with you could only be used if their bodies were to be transported as well as his own.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And died – Gen 49:33.
He and our fathers – The time which the Israelites remained in Egypt was 215 years, so that all the sons of Jacob were deceased before the Jews went out to go to the land of Canaan.
And were carried over – Jacob himself was buried in the field of Macpelah by Joseph and his brethren, Gen. 1, 13. It is expressly said that the bones of Joseph were carried by the Israelites when they went into the land of Canaan, and buried in Shechem, Jos 24:32; compare Gen 50:25. No mention is made in the Old Testament of their carrying the bones of any of the other patriarchs, but the thing is highly probable in itself. If the descendants of Joseph carried his bones, it would naturally occur to them to take also the bones of each of the patriarchs, and give them an honorable sepulchre together in the land of promise. Josephus (Antiq., book 2, chapter 8, section 2) says that the posterity and sons of these men (of the brethren of Joseph), after some time, carried their bodies and buried them in Hebron; but as to the bones of Joseph, they carried them into the land of Canaan afterward, when the Hebrews went out of Egypt. This is in accordance with the common opinion of the Jewish writers, that they were buried in Hebron. Yet the tradition is not uniform. Some of the Jews affirm that they were buried in Sychem (Kuinoel). As the Scriptures do not anywhere deny that the patriarchs were buried in Sychem, it cannot be proved that Stephen was in error. There is one circumstance of strong probability to show that he was correct. At the time when this defense was delivered, Sychem was in the hands of the Samaritans, between whom and the Jews there was a violent hostility. Of course, the Jews would not be willing to concede that the Samaritans had the bones of their ancestors, and hence, perhaps the opinion had been maintained that they were buried in Hebron.
Into Sychem – This was a town or village near to Samaria. It was called Sichar (see the notes on Joh 4:5), Shechem, and Sychem. It is now called Naplous or Napolose, and is ten miles from Shiloh, and about forty from Jerusalem, toward the north.
That Abraham bought – The word Abraham here has given rise to considerable perplexity, and it is now pretty generally conceded that it is a mistake. It is certain, from Gen 33:19 and Jos 24:32, that this piece of land was bought, not by Abraham, but by Jacob, of the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. The land which Abraham purchased was the cave of Macpelah, of the sons of Heth, in Hebron, Gen. 23. Various solutions have been proposed of this difficulty, which it is not necessary to detail. It may be remarked, however:
- That as the text now stands, it is an evident error. This is clear from the passages cited from the Old Testament above.
(2)It is not at all probable that either Stephen or Luke would have committed such an error. Every consideration must lead us to the conclusion that they were too well acquainted with such prominent points of the Jewish history to commit an error like this.
(3)The probability, therefore, is, that the error has arisen since; but how, is not known, nor is there any way of ascertaining. All the ancient versions agree in reading Abraham. Only one manuscript reads Abraham our father. Some have supposed, therefore, that it was written which our father bought, and that some early transcriber inserted the name of Abraham. Others, that the name was omitted entirely by Stephen; and then the antecedent to the verb bought will be Jacob, in verse 15, according with the fact. Other modes have been proposed also, but none are entirely satisfactory. If there was positive proof of Stephens inspiration, or if it were necessary to make that out, the difficulty would be much greater. But it has already been remarked that there is no decisive evidence of that, and it is not necessary to make out that point to defend the Scriptures. All that can be demanded of the historian is, that he should give a fair account of the defense as it was delivered; and though the probability is that Stephen would not commit Such an error, yet, admitting that he did, it by no means proves that Luke was not inspired, or that Luke has committed any error in recording what was actually said.
Of the sons of Emmor – In the Hebrew Gen 33:19, the children of Hamor – but different ways of rendering the same word.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Which St. Stephen puts them in mind of the rather, that he might insinuate, no country, nor place, nor temple, were so necessary, but that (notwithstanding they had none of them) their forefathers did live and die in the fear and favour of God, although in Egypt, out of the Promised Land, &c.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9-16. the patriarchs, moved withenvy, sold Joseph into Egypt, but God was with himHere Stephengives his first example of Israel’s opposition to God’s purposes,in spite of which and by means of which those purposes wereaccomplished.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
So Jacob went down into Egypt,…. At the invitation of his son Joseph:
and died, he, and our fathers; both Jacob and his twelve sons died in Egypt, though we have no account of the death of any of them, but Jacob and Joseph, particularly; only in general, that Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation, Ge 49:33 Ex 1:6 the Syriac version adds “there”, that is, in Egypt.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “So Jacob went down into Egypt,” (kai katebe lakob eis Aigupton) “And Jacob went down into the land of Egypt,” an established Biblical and secular fact, Gen 46:27-28.
2) “And died,” (kai eteleutesei autos) “And there he died,” after charging his sons regarding his burial, or reburial, that he was to be buried back in Canaan at Machpelah, where Abraham and Isaac were buried, Gen 49:29-33.
3) “He, and our fathers,” (autos kai hoi pateres hemon) “Both he and our fathers,” there died as well, others of the Hebrew kindred also died in Egypt, away from their land of promise, though they like we, shall one day dwell in a better land, a better place of promise, Joh 14:1-3; 2Co 5:1; 1Th 4:13-18.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. When they were come down We do not, with Dr. Goulburn, (Acts of the Deacons,) extol Philip’s modesty in now standing in the background. Philip held the apostles as much his superiors here as in Jerusalem; and the apostles came with the same spirit of wise and holy supervision as they exerted in first establishing the deaconship.
Prayed for them The apostles seemed to think that praying was better than criticism. Rather than be too ready at exercising their own authority, they sought the decision of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, himself and our fathers; and they were carried over to Shechem, and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a price in silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem.’
So Joseph in Egypt was the source of their deliverance. And the final result of their deliverance was that they were buried in the land that God had promised them, in the tomb of their tribe. To those who had become obedient God fulfilled His promise.
Here we have another telescoped statement, presumably based on Jewish tradition with which his hearers would have had no quarrel. ‘Abraham bought’ is on the basis that Jacob who did buy it (Jos 24:32) could be seen as in the loins of Abraham (compare how in Gen 25:23 whole nations are seen as in Rebekah’s womb). We in our more pedantic way would say ‘the Abrahamic tribe, to whom the promises were made, bought’. It was important that it was connected with Abraham here, because it was to Abraham that the promises had been made (Act 7:5).
Note that it is stated that ‘they’ (our fathers) were carried there and laid in the tomb. We may assume from this that there was a Jewish tradition that most of the patriarchs were finally buried there (there were certainly Jewish traditions of the patriarchs being buried in Canaan), although the only information that we have from the Scriptures is of Joseph as being buried there (Jos 24:32). Jacob was in fact buried with Abraham in Hebron (Gen 50:13). It is therefore the other sons that are in question. But the important thing that Stephen was wanting to emphasise as concisely as possible was that the patriarchs had been finally buried in the land promised to Abraham. He simply selected a well known example in order to bring out the point.
Alternately Stephen may have seen Joseph’s body as representing all their fathers, so that they were buried there in him symbolically. But if Joseph had made arrangements for his bones to be carried back to Canaan it is quite possible, even probable, that the others had as well, with the bones of Joseph getting special prominence because of his importance.
Some have seen the connection with Shechem, which in Stephen’s time was connected with the Samaritans, as another indication of the ‘foreign’ element so prominent in Stephen’s speech, with the thought that even Jacob’s sons were buried in a place despised by the present generation rather than in what they would see as the land proper.
‘Jacob went down into Egypt.’ From Act 7:9 onwards Stephen constantly mentions Egypt (thirteen times). He is thus stressing that until the time of Moses and for a large part of his life, Egypt was their focus and their environment.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 7:15 . The frequent mention of Egypt may perhaps indicate that Stephen meant to emphasise the fact that there, far away from the land of promise, God’s Presence was with the chosen race (who were now all in a strange land) and His worship was observed. : only here in this sense in N.T. Some have supposed that only and not is the subject; this would no doubt avoid the first difficulty of the verse, viz. , that Jacob was buried in Shechem, whereas according to Gen 50:13 he was laid to rest in the cave of Machpelah. But a further difficulty must be met. Joseph is the only son of the Patriarch who is expressly stated to have been buried in Shechem, Jos 24:32 , and of the removal of the bodies from Egypt nothing is said. But the silence as to the latter fact need not trouble us, as whether we accept the tradition mentioned by Josephus or by St. Jerome, they both presuppose the removal of the bodies of the Patriarchs to the promised land, cf. the discussion on Exo 13:19 . Mechilta (Lumby, p. 164), Wetstein, in loco , and see also the tradition in the Book of Jubilees , chap. xlvi., that the children carried up the bones of the sons of Jacob, and buried them in Machpelah, except those of Joseph. But another tradition is implied in Sot. 7 b . According to Josephus, who probably repeats a local tradition, Ant. , ii., 8, 2, they were buried at Hebron. But according to St. Jerome their tombs were shown at Shechem, and the Rabbinical tradition mentioned by Wetstein and Lightfoot places their burial there, a statement supported by a Samaritan tradition existing to this day ( Palestine Exploration Fund , December, 1877, see Felten and Plumptre, in loco ). When we consider the prominent position of Shechem as compared with Hebron in the time of Joshua, there is nothing strange in the fact that the former place rather than Machpelah should have been chosen as the resting-place not only of Joseph but also of his brethren. Plumptre has ingeniously contended that St. Stephen might have followed the Samaritan tradition, cf. Act 6:5 , and see Expositor , vol. vii., first series: “The Samaritan element in the Gospels and Acts,” p. 21 ff., although we need not suppose that in this reference to the hated Samaritans Stephen proposed to show that not even they had been rejected by God. There is certainly no difficulty in supposing that here and elsewhere Stephen might easily have adopted some popular tradition, and at all events the fact that the mistake, if it is one, is left unnoticed by the historian is a plain proof of the truthfulness of the record. But a further difficulty. Abraham purchases the cave of Machpelah, but from Ephron the Hittite, Gen 23:16 . The sons of Hamor sell a field, but to Jacob a field at Shechem, Gen 33:19 , Jos 24:32 . How can we explain this with reference to the statement in the text? Shechem was the earliest settlement of Abraham when he entered Canaan, and there he built an altar, Gen 12:6-7 . But no devout Hebrew worshipper, with all his reverence for holy places, would be content to see the altar so consecrated belonging to others, and so exposed to desecration; the purchase of the ground on which an altar stood would therefore seem to follow as a kind of corollary from the erection of an altar on that ground. This is at all events a more satisfactory solution than omitting the word or exchanging it for (see Hackett). Of course the reading of R.V., W.H [200] (as above), prevents a further difficulty as to the rendering of if the reading is retained, cf. Wendt, critical note, p. 157 (edition 1899), who follows A.V. in supporting “the father of Sichem,” so Hackett, but see on the other hand Plumptre, Acts, in loco , and Felten, in loco . For the way in which the two purchases and the two burials may have been confused in popular tradition, see Zckler, Apostelgeschichte , p. 302, 2nd edit. ( cf. Bengel, Stier, Nsgen).
[200] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
died = came to his end. Greek. teleutao.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Jacob: Gen 46:3-7, Num 20:15, Deu 10:22, Deu 26:5, Jos 24:4
died: Gen 49:33, Exo 1:6, Heb 11:21, Heb 11:22
Reciprocal: Gen 46:5 – Jacob Gen 46:6 – into Egypt Gen 47:29 – bury me not 1Sa 12:8 – Jacob Isa 52:4 – My people
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
Act 7:15. Our fathers meant the sons of Jacob and other early ancestors.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 7:15-16. Jacob went down into Egypt, and died After having been supported there about seventeen years, by the filial gratitude and tenderness of his son Joseph; and our fathers The patriarchs children also ended their lives in the same country; and were carried over into Sychem That is, as Jacob was immediately carried, with solemn funeral pomp and procession, to be buried in the cave of Machpelah, with Abraham and Isaac, (Gen 50:13,) so the patriarchs also, having been embalmed, and put into coffins, in Egypt, (Gen 50:26,) were, at the return of Israel from thence, carried over to Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre Made in that field which Jacob bequeathed to Joseph, as a peculiar legacy; he having first, as Abraham had done in a like case, bought it for a sum of money, (that is, for one hundred pieces of silver,) of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem From whom, in particular, the place was named; and the Amorites having afterward seized it, Jacob had by force recovered it out of their hands. See notes on Gen 48:22; Jos 24:32. It seems that St. Stephen, rapidly running over so many circumstances of history, had not leisure (nor was it needful, where they were so well known) to recite them all distinctly. Therefore he here contracts into one two different sepulchres, places, and purchases, so as, in the former history, to name the buyer, omitting the seller; in the latter, to name the seller, omitting the buyer. Abraham bought a burying-place of the children of Heth, Genesis 23. There Jacob was buried. Jacob bought a field of the children of Hamor. There Joseph was buried. You see here how St. Stephen contracts these two purchases into one. This concise manner of speaking, strange as it seems to us, was common among the Hebrews: particularly when, in a case notoriously known, the speaker mentioned but part of the story, and left the rest, which would have interrupted the current of his discourse, to be supplied in the mind of the hearer. And laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought The first land which these strangers bought was for a sepulchre. They sought for a country in heaven. Perhaps the whole sentence might be rendered thus: So Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over into Shechem, and laid by the sons [that is, descendants] of Hamor, the father of Shechem, in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money. So Bengelius and Wesley.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
See notes on verse 9
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
The number of people who made the trip and entered Egypt was probably 70 (Gen 46:26-27; Exo 1:5; Deu 10:22). Jacob died safe and blessed under Joseph’s rule. So will Israel end its days under Jesus’ rule in the Millennium. Jacob died in Egypt as did his sons and their immediate descendants. Thus Act 7:11-15 record a threat to the chosen people and God’s preservation of them, a second testimony to God’s faithfulness in this pericope (cf. Act 7:9-10).