Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 7:24
And seeing one [of them] suffer wrong, he defended [him,] and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian:
24. and smote the Egyptian ] i.e. killed him. See Exo 2:12.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Suffer wrong – The wrong or injury was, that the Egyptian was smiting the Hebrew, Exo 2:11-12.
Smote the Egyptian – He slew him, and buried him in the sand,
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 24. Smote the Egyptian] See this explained, Ex 2:11, Ex 2:12 (note).
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This fact of Moses some defend by the law of nature, which allows us to protect the innocent; but many things we know were done by an extraordinary warrant, which we are not to imitate; nor by our own authority to avenge ourselves or others.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. avenged him that was oppressed,and smote the Egyptiangoing farther in the heat of hisindignation than he probably intended.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And seeing one of them suffer wrong,…. Beza’s Cambridge copy, and one of Stephens’s, and one in the Bodleian library add, “of his own kindred”: and so Ex 2:11 he is said to be “one of his brethren”; which Aben Ezra explains, , “of his family”, one of the tribe of Levi; and so another Jewish writer m is very particular, and says,
“Moses went out to the camp of the Israelites, and saw an Egyptian smite one of the sons of Kohath, who was of his brethren of the tribe of Levi, as it is said, Ex 2:11.”
This man, according to some of the Jewish writers n, was the husband of Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, Le 24:11 but, according to others, it was Dathan o: the cause and manner of his suffering wrong was this, as they report p; one of the taskmasters having set his eyes upon his wife, who was a beautiful woman, came early one morning, and got him out of his house to work, and then went into his wife, and lay with her; which when the man understood, he made some disturbance about it, for which he caused him to serve in very hard bondage, and beat him severely; who flying to Moses for protection,
he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed; he took his part, and screened him from the insults and blows of the officer, and avenged his cause:
and smote the Egyptian; and killed him: it is commonly said by the Jews q, that he killed him by the sword of his mouth, by making use of the word Jehovah; though others r say, he smote him with his fist, which is more likely; or rather with his sword; the Ethiopic version adds, “and buried him in the sand”. Beza’s ancient copy, and one of Stephens’s, add, “and he hid him in the sand”, as it is in Ex 2:12 and which the Jews understand not literally of any sand pit, into which he might cast him, and cover him; or of the sand of the sea, near which he was, and which does not appear; but mystically of the people of Israel, comparable to the sand of the sea, among whom he hid him. So in one of their Midrashes s it is observed on these words,
“and “he hid him in the sand”; though there were none there but the Israelites—who are like to sand: he said unto them, ye are like the sand; take this man here and put him there, and his voice is not heard; so this thing will be hid among you, and not heard. And so you find that the thing was not heard but by the means of the Hebrews, as it is said, “and he went out on the second day, and two men of the Hebrews”, &c.”
And another of their t writers, says, that when Moses saw the Egyptian smiting the Hebrew,
“he began to curse him, and took the sword of his lips, and killed him, and hid him in the camp of the Israelites, as it is said, Ex 2:12 not in the sand, but among the Israelites: hence it is said, “the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea”, Ho 1:10.”
To which may be added what one of their chronologers u affirms, that
“Moses slew the Egyptian with the ineffable name of God, and hid him among the children of Israel, who are like to sand.”
This Egyptian is said, by Jarchi, to be one of the taskmasters who was appointed over the officers of Israel, who, from the cockcrowing, kept them to their work, which is very probable.
m Pirke Eliezer, c. 48. n Jarchi in Exod. ii. 12. o Shemot Rabba, sect. 1. fol. 91. 4. Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 5. 2. p Shemot Rabba, & Shalshalet, ib. & Chronicon Mosis, fol. 5. 2. & Jarchi in Exod. ii. 12. q Pirke Eliezer, c. 48. Shalshalet, ib. Clement. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 344. r Shemot Rabba, ib. s Shemot Rabba, sect. 1. fol. 9l. 4. t Pirke Eliezer, c. 48. u R. Gedaliah, Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 5. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Suffer wrong (). Present passive participle of . By blows (Ex 2:11).
Avenged ( ). First aorist active indicative of . This idiom occurs in Lu 18:7 with (this from and that from without right or law and then exacting law of right out of one, exacting vengeance).
Him that was oppressed ( ). Present passive articular participle in the dative case of , to tire down with toil, to treat roughly, common in late Greek, in the N.T. only here and 2Pe 2:7 (sore distressed). The man was on the point of being overcome.
Smiting (). First aorist active participle of , in the old Greek the beat of the heart, only in the LXX and N.T. to smite a deadly blow as here like .
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Defended [] . Only here in New Testament. The word means originally to ward off from one’s self, with a collateral notion of requital or revenge.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And seeing one of them suffer wrong,” (kai idontina adikoumenon) “And seeing that one was being injured or abused,” Exo 1:11; Exo 2:11; Perhaps this was over their grievous work loads, Exo 5:4-5.
2) “He defended him,” (emunato) “He defended (him),” the brother of his kindred or race who was being overpowered, injured, burdened, and oppressed, Exo 6:6-7. He smote the Egyptian and killed him.
3) “And avenged him that was oppressed,” (kai epoiesin ekdikesin to kataponoumeno) “And he personally defended or avenged his racial brother who was being injured,” who was getting the worse of a fight; and Moses refused any longer to be known as Pharaoh’s daughter’s son, Heb 11:24.
4) “And smote the Egyptian:” (pataksas ton Aiguption) “Repeatedly he struck or was striking the Egyptian,” Exo 2:12. It appears that this was the point in his life when he made his choice of faith to trust in Israel’s God, beheld him who is invisible as Savior, deliverer, and sustainer for him, Heb 11:25.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
24. When he saw a certain man. Moses came not to this spectacle by chance, but forasmuch as God had appointed him to be the deliverer of his people, he would have him show forth this token, and, as it were, make this beginning. For Stephen doth plainly express that he did attempt nothing unadvisedly, but did that which became him that was appointed to be a deliverer of the people, knowing that he was thereunto called. For unless God had armed him, (and made him puissant,) it had been a thing altogether unlawful for him to kill any man, how wicked soever he had been. It is a godly deed, and praiseworthy, for a man to set himself against the wicked, to defend the good against the injuries of the wicked, to bridle their violence; but it is not for a private person to punish, (or take vengeance.) Therefore, it was unlawful for Moses to slay the Egyptian, save only inasmuch as the Lord had put the sword in his hand according to the right of his calling. But this heroical courage and nobleness of heart (413) was a work of the Holy Ghost; because God doth mightily show forth his power in those whom he appointeth unto great matters, that they may be able to fulfill their function. In sum, Stephen meaneth that Moses was even then offered to be the minister of deliverance when the day was at hand, according to the covenant made with Abraham, yet did the people hope for nothing less.
(413) “ Haec heroica animi magnitudo,” this heroic magnanimity.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(24) And avenged him.The Greek phrase is noticeable as identical with that used by St. Luke (Luk. 18:7) in reporting the lesson drawn by our Lord from the parable of the Unjust Judge.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
24. Pray ye For a moment the Magus is overawed. He believes the divine power to reside in the apostles, and trembles at the perdition into which Peter’s imprecation precipitates his money and himself. He begs their prayer, not as refusing to pray for himself, but as believing they have an interest with the Divine, while his is only with the lower powers. But still his lower dregs of character remain undisturbed. Peter tells him to seek forgiveness; he only wants the aversion of threatened evil. He is at bottom still a sorcerer, and has not the slightest purpose of turning from his deviltries and demonish ways.
Josephus relates that, some ten years later than this, the Roman procurator, Felix, sent one of his friends, Simon by name, a Jew, a Cyprian by birth, claiming to be a magus, to seduce by glowing predictions and promises, Drusilla, daughter of Herod Agrippa and wife of Azizus, king of Emesa, to forsake her husband and marry the procurator. Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, Neander, and others, identify the two magi as one. But this Simon was a Cyprian; and the testimony of Justin Martyr that Luke’s Simon was a Samaritan, born at Gitton, is a little too specific to be fictitious, and is confirmed by the newly discovered writings of Hippolytus. If either was mistaken as to Simon’s birthplace it was Josephus.
In the early apocryphal writings, Simon Magus was made a legendary hero. His imagined contests with St. Peter were marvellous. He elevated himself into the air, (like a modern pseudo-spiritualist,) but was made to fall to the earth and was crushed, by Peter’s prayers, in Nero’s presence. He shut himself up in a tomb at Rome, promising to rise from it the third day; but, as Hippolytus says, he remains there still!
The case of Simon Magus suggests a brief discussion of the differences between a true and a false miracle. We agree with that class of thinkers, including Dr. Samuel Johnson, Baxter, Wesley, and, at the present day, Dr. Bushnell, who maintain that supernatural events of various classes are not confined to Scripture alone, but that the narratives affirming them are too numerous and too well authenticated to be rationally rejected summarily and universally. These narrated events may be roughly classified as 1. Fictitious, 2. Preternatural, 3. Supernatural, and 4. Miracle.
1 . The Fictitious. Narratives not sustained by contemporaneous evidence of perfectly unexceptionable character are to be held false. This sweeps away the larger mass of pagan and papal supernaturalisms. They are not generally, like the Gospel miracles, sustained by eyewitnesses, or the eyewitnesses were easily deceived by collusion, or mechanical and other contrivances. In countries where supernatural events, in accordance with the established faith, are readily believed without any critical hesitation, abundance of stories of the kind will prevail. Others are true in fact, but explicable by science. Marks of the cross on the body, which were once imagined to be miraculous, are found to be producible by electricity. Apparitions are often the result of disease.
2 . The Preternatural. A large share of wonders there are, not produced by any superhuman agent, but connected with the human system, which seem to belong to that side of our nature which is nearest to the supernatural, which is divided from the supernatural by no clear line, and which seems to be an avenue through which the supernatural reaches us, but which human scrutiny has never yet fully investigated. Under this class may come somnambulism, mesmeric sleep, verified presentiments, second sight, and some predictive dreams. Here may come those marvels in witchcraft which have never been explained. All these phenomena reveal depths in our nature never yet revealed by science.
Our systems are susceptible of preternatural wonders from the intense expectation of their coming upon us. (See note on Act 3:4.) Here we may place, perhaps, the curing of diseases by the shadow of Peter, (Act 5:15,) and the handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul, (Act 19:12.) Here, too, we place mostly the performances of Sceva and his set at Ephesus, as well as the wonders there produced by the spells of Diana; and the casting out of demons by the Jews as narrated by Josephus and alluded to by Jesus. Here we may place the wonder-working of Simon Magus, Elymas the sorcerer, and their class. Many preternatural phenomena take place in intense religious excitements, such as catalepsies, jerkings, and trances. The Mohammedan dancing dervishes perform preternatural exploits in whirling, and the Shakers in dancing.
Many preternaturalisms combine the marvel of expectation with the tentative. By tentative marvels we mean those which seem sometimes to succeed, but often fail. Thus the royal touch to cure the king’s evil, (of which Lecky in his “History of European Morals” makes much account,) had in its favour (besides the predisposition to feign and lie for flattery to the king) all the power of intense expectation, and yet often failed, or cured doubtfully, partially, or temporarily. So the public papers, both of New York and London, have contained marvellous paragraphs concerning the preternatural cures of certain classes of cases, performed by a Dr. Newton through manipulations and faith, which cures were partial and temporary, and yet sometimes apparently real. No clear case has ever yet occurred, we may believe, of curing congenital blindness or lameness.
The oracles of antiquity mostly arose from a preternatural excitement of the faculty of presentiment, in persons of a predisposed temperament, by artificial means. We have no necessity to deny that real predictions were sometimes produced. The difference between the oracular predictions and the divine prophecies is, that the former were scattered, and were, if not aimless, merely temporal in their objects and origin, and the latter were a collective system converging upon the Divine Messiah, having in view eternal objects as well as claiming a Divine origin.
3 . Supernatural. The simply supernatural, as distinct both from the preternatural and the miraculous, is a phenomenon that comes upon us from some invisible, yet clearly living superhuman agent. The power of that prophecy which identifies itself to the consciousness as the revelation from God, and is fully sustained as such by a fulfilment, is a supernaturalism.
The gifts or charisms of the New Testament Church, as promised by Christ, and forming part of his divine system, though often underlaid by the preternatural, are clearly supernatural. So, also, are the inspiration of the sacred writers, and even the influences of the Holy Spirit. All these are parts of one great supernatural whole, of which the word of God is the record and Christ the centre. All stand or fall together.
Under the supernatural, too, superinduced upon the preternatural, we rank demoniacal possessions and the case of the pythonic girl of Philippi. Here come all well-authenticated apparitions of the dead, and the appearance of angels, as to the apostles at ascension. It is impossible to explain the celebrated phenomena occurring in the Wesley family as other than supernatural, that is, as produced by an invisible, intelligent, purposing agent. They were sustained by such contemporaneous, intelligent, and incorrupt testimony as would prove even a miracle; they are authentic facts which no natural or materialistic philosopher has ever yet reconciled with his own system.
4 . The Miraculous. All miracle is supernatural; and from the standpoint of God himself, the Author of nature, both all nature and all supernatural, as by him performed, are miraculous. But from our human standpoint we may limit the term to a particular kind of supernaturalism, namely, to a supernaturalism visibly originated and performed at the will of a visible agent in attestation of a religious truth, system, or mission. A supernaturalism like a dream or a presentiment, coming upon a man from an invisible source rather than performed voluntarily by him, would thus be no miracle. Miracles, therefore, are in fact mostly limited to Scripture history. And the power for these miracles may be conceived as either in their agent’s permanent and original possession, and completely at his will, or specially delegated to him on only special occasions. Moses performed one miracle of larger physical magnitude than any one performed by Christ; but his miracles were specifically limited and prescribed to him. Christ alone appears to be full master of all miraculous power at will. All other performers of miracles are only occasional, and by special delegation from God, or from the ascended Christ. He stands alone in the attitude of claiming and wielding at pleasure, or in permanent unity with God’s will, any power he pleases in proof of his supreme identification with God himself. The human system, the elements, the gates of death and hades, nay, the powers of hell, submit to his sway and volition. He stands, therefore, without a rival; alone among all wonder-workers, alone among all professed religious founders; and when we superadd the identification of his divine person by antecedent prophecy, the majesty of his personality as it presents itself in the Gospel picture, and the wonderful effects of his life on human history, it is absurd to bring any supernaturalism into competition with his Divine Supremacy. Quite the reverse. Every other visible manifestation of the supernatural serves to remove the presupposition against miracle, and especially against the supreme miracle of Christ claiming to be God-man.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 7:24. And seeing one of them suffer, &c. See Exo 2:11 where the word is meche, which sometimes signifies to smite so as to kill; and the Israelite is here represented as , subdued in a struggle, and in immediate danger of his life: so that Moses had no occasion for a divine impulse in order to his doing this action; for, (not to mention, that God most probably would have supported him afterwards, and he needed not to have fled for it,) as the Egyptian had got the Israelite down, and was, as appeared by all circumstances, just going to kill him; Moses only defended the injured, and vindicated the innocent when oppressed; a thing which any person may lawfully do at any time, or in any place for a stranger, and much more for his own friend: nay, the thing was in itself so far from a crime, that it was highly laudable and praise-worthy; and what Moses might, with great reason, have done to the Israelite, had he been going as unjustly to kill the Egyptian. It is true, that justice could not be then had in the Egyptian court in behalf of the Israelites; and therefore some may think it was in those circumstances imprudent. But it must be remembered, that, according to the history, Exo 2:12. Moses used all proper precautions, and looked every way to see whether there were any Egyptians in sight, before he ventured to rescue his brother from the hand of the oppressor, and from death: and had not the Israelites themselves discovered it, it is highly probable that Pharaoh would never have known it. So that it is easy to vindicate the justice and prudence of this action of Moses. See the notes on Exodus 2.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 7:24-25 . See Exo 2:11-12 .
] to be unjustly treated . Erroneously Kuinoel holds that it here signifies verberari . That was the maltreatment.
] he exercised retaliation . Only here in the N. T., often in classic Greek. Similarly ; see Poppo, ad Thuc. i. 42; Herm. ad Soph. Ant. 639.
. . .] and procured revenge (Jdg 11:36 ). He became his , vindex .
.] for him who was on the point of being overcome (present participle). Comp. Polyb. xxix. 11. 11, xl. 7. 3; Diod. xi. 6, xiii. 56.
] mode of the . . . . . Wolf aptly says: “Percussionem violentam caedis causa factam hic innui indubium est.” Comp. Mat 26:31 , and see Act 7:28 .
The inaccuracy, that has no definite reference in the words that precede it, but only an indirect indication (Winer, p. 587 [E. T. 788]) in (which presupposes a maltreater ), is explained from the circumstances of the event being so universally known.
Act 7:25 . But he thought that his brethren would observe that God by his hand (intervention) was giving them deliverance .
] the giving is conceived as even now beginning; the first step toward effecting the liberation from bondage had already taken place by the killing of the Egyptian, which was to be to them the signal of deliverance.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
24 And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him , and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian:
Ver. 24. And avenged him ] Wherein haply he was too hasty to do justice before his time; which might cost him and cause him forty years’ exile in Midian.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
24. ] , from the history being so universally known, that the agent in the would be readily supplied: see Winer, edn. 6, 67. 1, d.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 7:24 . , “wronged,” i.e. , by blows, Exo 2:11 . : only here in N.T. ( sc. , ); in active the verb means to defend, “debebat scribere ,” says Blass, but in the middle it means defence of oneself, or of a friend, with the collateral notion of requital or retaliation on an enemy (see Rendall). In the middle it has also the meaning of avenging, and therefore might mean here “he took vengeance on” or “he repulsed” ( cf. Jos 10:13 , 2Ma 10:17 , Wis 11:3 , and Jos., Ant. , ix., 1, 2), although this is expressed in the next words. , cf. Luk 18:7-8 ; Luk 21:22 ; lit [205] , “wrought an avenging,” Rom 12:19 ( cf. Heb 10:30 ), 2Co 7:11 , 2Th 1:8 , 1Pe 2:14 . This and similar expressions are common in LXX, Jdg 11:36 , Psa 149:7 , Eze 25:17 , Mal 3:15Mal 3:15 ; 1Ma 7:9 ; 1Ma 7:24 ; 1Ma 7:38 ; . in Polybius with , Act 3:8 ; Act 3:10 . : only here and in 2Pe 2:7 ; cf. 2Ma 8:2 (R has ., of the Jews oppressed, trodden down, in the days of Judas Maccabus), Mal 2:2Mal 2:2 ; Mal 2:13Mal 2:13 ; used in Polyb. and Josephus, etc. The exact word is found in Didache 1 , v., 2. : lit [206] , to strike, hence to kill, in Biblical language only, cf. Exo 2:12 ; Exo 2:14 , and Act 7:28 below: so also in Mat 26:31 , Mar 14:27 (Zec 13:7 , LXX). The verb is very frequent in LXX. “Smiting the Egyptian,” R.V. .: not previously mentioned, but implied in ., which involves an oppressor; as in Act 7:26 the facts are regarded by St. Stephen as known to his audience.
[205] literal, literally.
[206] literal, literally.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
seeing. Greek. eidon. App-133.
suffer wrong = being wronged. Greek. adikeo. Compare App-128.
defended. Greek. amunomai. Only here.
avenged = took vengeance (Greek. ekdikesis. Here, Luk 18:7, Luk 18:8; Luk 21:22. Rom 12:19. 2Co 7:11. 2Th 1:8. Heb 10:30. 1Pe 2:14) for.
him that was oppressed = the oppressed one. Greek. kataponeomai. Only here and 2Pe 2:7.
and smote = having smitten.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
24.] , from the history being so universally known, that the agent in the would be readily supplied: see Winer, edn. 6, 67. 1, d.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 7:24. , having smitten the Egyptian) So the LXX. in Exo 2:12, where the Hebrew has he slew the Egyptian.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Act 7:28, Joh 18:10, Joh 18:11, Joh 18:25-27
Reciprocal: Exo 2:12 – he looked Heb 11:25 – Choosing
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
Act 7:24. There is no question about the injustice of the Egyptian’s attack upon the Hebrew. The point is that Moses acted before he was told to by the Lord. The details of this episode are given in Exo 2:11-14.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 7:24. Suffer wrong. That is, injured by blows, as in Exo 2:11.
And smote the Egyptian. He struck the Egyptian who did the wrong so as to kill him. The Egyptian, simply without any previous allusion, because the story was so well known.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 17
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
24-29. Cultured all his life in the Egyptian idolatry, flooded with all the learning of the world, the greatest military general on the globe, born with redoubtable physical courage, and a total stranger to fear, Moses unhesitatingly dashes away to the brick kilns and mortar-yards, quarries and mines of his toiling consanguinity, proclaiming his kinship, espousing their ruined estate and doubting not that they will rally around him by millions, fly to arms, rise unanimously in rebellion against their masters, and thus give him an opportunity, vi et armis, to lead them out of bondage back to their native land. In this he is utterly discomfited. Like the rest of us, having attempted to achieve victory by human power, he signally fails. Not only is his enterprise of Hebrew emancipation a hopeless failure, as they were then a race of cowards, utterly uncultured in military tactics, but the Pharaohs, looking upon him as a royal rival, and now even attempting an insurrection of the slaves, as they think in that way seeking a passport to the throne, the palace fulminates death and destruction for the vile insurgent; they are hot on his track, so that he narrowly and providentially escapes with his life. When I was there, I visited the scene of these stirring events so far as locations after thirty-five hundred years can be identified. I looked down into Jacobs well in the citadel of Cairo, which tradition says Prince Joseph dug for his father, two hundred feet deep, the walls sixteen feet square at the top, each side a monolith, contracting slightly as it descends; the sparkling water in that deep well surviving to this day. At the location of the ancient city of Memphis, the capital and metropolis, in the alluvial valley of the Nile, the great eastern desert is very nigh, having no permanent habitations, always roamed over by the Bedouin Arabs and traversed by caravans of camels. Moses quickly dashes away into this desert, travels northward to the Isthmus of Suez, crosses out of Africa into Asia, doubles round the west end of the Red Sea, travels eastward into Arabia, enters the wild, rugged regions of Mt. Sinai, the hand of the Almighty leading him to the home of Jethro, the Midianitish priest and prophet of the Most High in the normal succession of Noah and Shem, a true preacher of righteousness, orthodox and faithful in his dispensation, i. e., the Patriarchal. He was the very man Moses needed to teach him the things of God. That he was a true and orthodox prophet of Jehovah, we see illustrated when in after years he visited Israel in the wilderness, spending a fortnight with his son-in-law; meanwhile God used him to institute the eldership of Israel, which the apostles transferred to the Christian dispensation, and this day under God is the custodian of the Church militant. This, to Moses, was like entering a new world, as he left all the people he had ever known and came to others whom he had never seen. Of course he was lonesome. Therefore, Jethro not only received him kindly into a shepherds tent, became his faithful teacher and spiritual father, but he comforted his bereavement by giving him his daughter Zipporah in wedlock. Thus Moses comes down from the top of royalty to the bottom of poverty and simplicity, beginning life de novo, like every newborn soul. Now he enjoys Gods theological college, that old burning desert, with the sheep to entertain him, the stars to watch him and the sand for a bed, forty years, while he gets down to the bottom-rock of humiliation, sitting meek and lowly at the feet of the prophet Jethro and taught of God the deep things of the kingdom. Thirty years have rolled away in this primitive prophetical school. He is now ready for that advanced work of grace, i. e., sanctification, putting him far out in advance of his dispensation, complimenting him with bona fide membership in the Pentecostal church many centuries in anticipation. Behold, he sees a thorn- bush enveloped in lambent flame, yet not consumed. It is the vivid symbol of the fiery baptism, then and there sanctifying and filling his own soul. After forty years, his elder brother Aaron, in a similar manner participant of Gods preparatory school, also joins Moses at the burning bush.