Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 7:45
Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Joshua into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
45. Which also our fathers that came after ] Better, having received it after. For all the generation that came out of Egypt was dead at the entry into Canaan except Caleb and Joshua.
brought in with Jesus [i.e. Joshua ] It is better here and in Heb 4:8 to let the Greek orthography give place to the form of the word used in the Old Testament.
into the possession of the Gentiles ] The preposition is not into but in, and the noun does not mean the land possessed by the nations, but the act of the Israelites in taking possession of it for themselves. Read, when they took possession of the nations, (lit. in their taking possession,) whom God drove [thrust] out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David. Till this time the Tabernacle existed, and as the history tells was not always in one place in the land of Canaan, and at the time when the first proposal for a permanent Temple is made by David (2Sa 7:2) and approved by Nathan, God forbids the building of it by David. All which goes to strengthen Stephen’s argument that the worship should not be fettered to one place.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Our fathers that came after – None of the generation that came out of Egypt were permitted to enter into the and of Canaan except Caleb and Joshua, Num 14:22-24; Num 32:11-12. Hence, it is said that their fathers who came after, that is, after the generation when the tabernacle was built. The Greek, however, here means, properly, which also our fathers, having received, brought, etc. The sense is not materially different. Stephen means that it was not brought in by that generation, but by the next.
With Jesus – This should have been rendered with Joshua. Jesus is the Greek mode of writing the name Joshua. But the Hebrew name should by all means have been retained here, as also in Heb 4:8.
Into the possession of the Gentiles – Into the land possessed by the Gentiles, that is, into the promised land then occupied by the Canaanites, etc.
Whom God … – That is, he continued to drive them out until the time of David, when they were completely expelled. Or it may mean that the tabernacle was in the possession of the Jews, and was the appointed place of worship, until the time of David, who desired to build him a temple. The Greek is ambiguous. The connection favors the latter interpretation.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 45. Brought in with Jesus] That is, with JOSHUA, whom the Greek version, quoted by St. Stephen, always writes , JESUS, but which should constantly be written Joshua in such cases as the present, in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion.
Possession of the Gentiles] , of the heathens, whom Joshua conquered, and gave their land to the children of Israel.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Jesus, or Joshua, it being the same name, as appears also, Heb 4:8, only Jesus is more according to the Greek use: Joshua was a type of Jesus, and agreed with him in his name, and in the reason of his name; he having also saved the people, and brought them into the promised rest; yet the difference is as great between them as betwixt the heavenly Canaan and the earthly.
Before the face of our fathers; they were not able to look upon an Israelite, whilst God was for them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
45. which . . . our fathers thatcame afterrather, “having received it by succession”(Margin), that is, the custody of the tabernacle from theirancestors.
brought in with JesusorJoshua.
into the possessionrather,”at the taking possession of [the territory of] the Gentiles.”
unto the days of Davidfortill then Jerusalem continued in the hands of the Jebusites. ButStephen’s object in mentioning David is to hasten from the tabernaclewhich he set up, to the temple which his son built, in Jerusalem; andthis only to show, from their own Scripture (Isa 66:1;Isa 66:2), that even thattemple, magnificent though it was, was not the properresting-place of Jehovah upon earth; as his audience and thenations had all along been prone to imagine. (What that resting-placewas, even “the contrite heart, that trembleth at God’s word,“he leaves to be gathered from the prophet referred to).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Which also our fathers that came after,…. Who came after those that died in the wilderness, and never saw nor entered into the land of Canaan; the children of that generation whose carcasses fell in the wilderness, who sprung from them, came up in their room, and succeeded them:
brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles; that is, they having received the tabernacle from their fathers, brought it into the land of Canaan, which was possessed by the Gentiles, when they entered into it with Joshua their leader, and captain, at the head of them; who is here called Jesus, as he is in Heb 4:8 for Joshua and Jesus are the same name, and signify a saviour; for such an one Joshua was to the people of Israel; and was an eminent type of Jesus Christ, the captain of our salvation, in his bringing many sons to glory:
whom God drove out before the face of our fathers; the Gentiles, who before possessed the land of Canaan, were drove out by God before the Israelites, to make way for their settlement there; for to whom can the success of those victories over the Canaanites be ascribed, which the Israelites under Joshua obtained, but to God? The language on the “Tingitane”, or Hercules’s pillars, said to be set up by some of these Canaanites, agrees with this, on which they inscribed these words;
“we are they who fled from the face of Joshua the robber, the son of Nave,”
or Nun:
unto the days of David; this clause must not be read in connection with the words immediately preceding, as if the sense was, that the inhabitants of Canaan were drove out of their land unto the times of David, and then returned and resettled, as in the Ethiopic version; but with the beginning of the verse, and the meaning is, that the tabernacle which the Israelites received from their fathers, and brought into the land of Canaan with them, was there unto the times of David.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Which (). Agreeing with , not with .
In their turn (). First aorist middle participle of , to receive through another, to receive in sucession or in turn. Late Greek, only here in N.T. Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 115) argues from a second century B.C. papyrus that means rather deputy or court official than successor.
With Joshua ( ). With Jesus, the Greek form of Joshua (contracted from Jehoshua, Mt 1:21), as in Heb 4:8.
When they entered on the possession of the nations ( ). Literally “in (or at the time of) the possession of the nations.” See on 7:5 for the only other N.T. instance of .
Which (). The nations, genitive by attraction to case of .
Thrust out (). First aorist active indicative of , to push out, common verb, here, only in N.T. save some MSS. in Ac 27:39.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
That came after [] . Only here in New Testament. The verb originally means to receive from one another, in succession; and that appears to be the more simple and natural rendering here : having received it (from Moses). Rev., very neatly, in their turn.
Jesus. Joshua. The names are the same, both signifying Savior. See on Mt 1:21.
Into the possession [ ] . Rev., when they entered on the possession. 15 Before the face [ ] . More strictly, “away from the face.” The same expression occurs in the Septuagint, Deu 11:23.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Which also our fathers,” (en kai hoi pateres hemon) “Which (pattern or type) also our fathers,” fathers of Israel, their racial fathers who came thru the wilderness wandering.
2) “That came after brought in with Jesus,” (eisegagon diadeksamenoi hoi meta lesou) “Having previously received, brought in with Jesus,” or Joshua; they brought or carried the tabernacle with them across Jordan under Joshua’s leadership after Moses died, Jos 3:13.
3) “Into the possession of the Gentiles,” (en te kataschesei ton ethnon) “in the possession of the nations,” when they entered into Canaan, then possessed by or occupied by the Gentiles, Jos 3:14-17. Neither Miriam, Aaron, the priests, nor Moses was able to lead Israel into their promised possession, but Joshua, or Jesus was, Mat 1:21.
4) “Whom God drove out before the face of our fathers,” (hon eksosen hotheos apo prosopou ton pateron hemon) “Whom God put out (drove away from) the face of our fathers,” Deu 7:1-6; Deu 11:23-25; Deu 12:29-32; Jos 14:1-2; Psa 78:55.
5) “Unto the days of David;” (eso ton hemeron David) “Even up until the days of David;” That is the tabernacle of worship made after the pattern God had given, was kept in transit usage from the wilderness wanderings until the days of David, when he had it in his heart to build an house for God, Neh 9:22-24; Psa 44:1-3.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
45. Which they brought in. This serveth to increase the frowardness (461) of the nation, that whereas the tabernacle did continue with them, and they carried the same whithersoever they went, yet could they not be kept within the bounds of God’s covenant, but they would have strange and profane rites; to wit, declaring that God dwelt amidst them, from whom they were so far distant, and whom they did drive out of that inheritance which he had given them. To this purpose serveth that also, that God did beautify the tabernacle with divers miracles; for the worthiness thereof (462) was established by those victories which the Jews had gotten, as it appeareth by divers places of the holy history; therefore, it must needs be that they were very disobedient, which did not cease oftentimes to start aside from that worship which was so many ways approved.
Until the days of David. Although the ark of the Lord continued long in Shiloh, yet it had no certain place until the reign of David, (1Sa 1:3😉 for it was unlawful for men to erect a place for the same, but it was to be placed in that place which the Lord had showed, as Moses saith oftentimes. Neither durst David himself, after he had taken it from the enemies, bring it into the thrashing-floor of Araunah until the Lord had declared, by an angel from heaven, that that was the place which he had chosen, (2Sa 24:16.) And Stephen counteth this a singular benefit of God, not without great cause, that the place was showed to David wherein the Israelites should hereafter worship God; as in the Psalm he rejoiceth as over some notable thing: “I was glad when they said unto me, We will go into the house of the Lord; our feet shall be stable in thy courts, O Jerusalem,” (Psa 132:3) The priesthood was coupled with the kingdom; therefore, the stability of the kingdom is showed in the resting of the ark; therefore it is said that he desired this so earnestly that he bound himself with a solemn vow, that he would not come within his house, that his eyes should enjoy no sleep, nor his temples any rest, until he should know a place for the Lord, and a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. Furthermore, the place was showed to David, but it was granted to Solomon to build the temple, (1Kg 5:7.)
(461) “ Pervicaciam,” perverseness.
(462) “ Illius dignitas,” its dignity.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL REMARKS
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. 7:45-53
From Joshua to Jesus; or, the Downward Course of Israel
I. Joshua and the conquest.
1. The clearing out of the nations from Canaan.
(1) Effected instrumentally by the swords of Joshua and his warriors. Stephen does not hint that the extermination of the Canaanites was a horrible impiety; this is mostly done by tender-hearted moderns who see nothing wrong in shooting down inferior races when they happen to be possessed of desirable lands.
(2) Sanctioned providentially and even commanded verbally by God Himself (Deu. 7:1-2; Deu. 32:49), so that Stephen represents the nations as having been thrust out by God before the face of the fathers of Israel. That God had a perfect right to eject the degraded Canaanites from their land, and to do so in whatever way He chose, no one can dispute. That He selected Joshua and his warriors for this purpose could not render the action wrong on Gods part, and was ample justification for Joshua 2. The entering in of Israel into their possession. This took place under the leadership of Joshua, who in conducting Israel to Canaan served as an eminent type of Christ. In taking over the soil the Israelites did nothing different from what has been going on ever since in the providence of God. Degenerate nations retire, go down, and become extinct before or are absorbed in superior peoples who are better able to occupy the land.
3. The establishment in Canaan of Jehovahs worship. Stephen clearly believed that Moses had made a tabernacle in the wilderness, and that Joshua had fetched it into Canaan, setting it up first at Gilgal (Jos. 4:18-19), and latterly at Shiloh (Jos. 18:1; Jos. 19:51). In so doing Israel under Joshua began her national history well. Had she adhered to Jehovah and His tabernacle her subsequent fortunes, and perhaps the history of the world, would have been different.
II. David and the monarchy.Two things noted.
1. Concerning Davids character. That he found favour in the sight of God, and was a man after Gods own heart (Act. 13:22; 1Sa. 13:14), who delighted to do Jehovahs will (Psa. 40:8). This does not imply that David never fell into sin.
2. Concerning Davids request. To be allowed to find a habitation for the God of Jacob. This request, though denied him, was pronounced good and accepted as an evidence of his piety (1Ch. 22:7-8). In Davids days Israels national glory reached its zenith. In the next reign it began to decline.
III. Solomon and the temple.
1. The honour conferred upon Davids son. He was permitted to carry out his fathers project and erect a house for the worship of Jehovah (1 Kings 6, 8). A signal honour of which in his latter days he became unmindful (1Ki. 11:1-13). Eminent service in and to the Church is no certain guarantee against apostasy. For the notion that Stephen intended to declare that Solomon built the temple without warrant, in place of the tabernacle (Weizscker), there is not the shadow of foundation.
2. The silence preserved about his reign. It is significant that Stephen adds nothing more about Davids son; as if he desired to convey the impression that nothing more to Solomons advantage or Israels could be said. Possibly this was so. Nevertheless, Nihil nisi bonum de mortuis is an excellent maxim.
IV. Isaiah and Jehovah.
1. The decline in religion after Solomon. Notwithstanding the magnificence of the temple worship, and perhaps partly because of its magnificence, it began to degeneratedrifting first into mere external ritual, and latterly terminating in shameful and shameless idolatry (see Isa. 1:11-15; Isa. 2:8).
2. The lofty doctrine of the prophets. That Jehovah was not a local divinity, but the sovereign of the universe; that He could not be confined to any material edifice, however imposing, since heaven was His throne and the earth His footstool; and that He could not be served by any mere bodily performance or visible ceremonial, but only by the true homage of the heart.
3. The evil fortunes of the prophets. The people, stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart, resisted the Holy Ghost who spake in them (2Sa. 23:2; 2Pe. 1:21), and persecuted them, sometimes even unto death (Mat. 23:29-35).
V. Jesus and His contemporaries.
1. Their exalted privileges.
(1) They had received the law, as it was ordained by angels, or as the ordinance of angels (Psa. 68:17).
(2) They had been honoured by the coming to them of the righteous One (Joh. 1:11).
2. Their heinous sins.
(1) They had not kept the law (Joh. 7:19).
(2) They had betrayed and murdered the righteous One (Act. 2:23).
Learn.
1. The powerlessness of mere external privilege to save.
2. The heredity that shows itself in sin as well as in piety.
3. The criminality of those who know the truth, and do not walk in accordance therewith.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Act. 7:44-47. Four Old Testament Typical Persons.
I. Moses.As
1. Deliverer.
2. Mediator.
3. Lawgiver.
II. Joshua.As
1. Captain.
2. Conqueror.
3. Consolidator.
III. David.As
1. Shepherd.
2. King.
IV. Solomon.As
1. Builder of the Temple.
2. As Prince of Peace.
Act. 7:47. The House and its Dwellers.
I. The house.There was on earth once a house which Jehovah called His own. Though the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands, yet He chose for Himself a local habitation, and built for Himself a place of special abode. For many an age it was simply a tent, of stakes, and boards, and curtains; in after ages it was a palace, of marble, and gold, and cedar, and brass; but whether it was named Jehovahs tent or Jehovahs temple, it was still the place of His habitation.
II. The dwellers.They of old were Israel. To them pertained the house, and the altar, and the mercy seat, and the glory.
III. The blessedness.Blessed are they that dwell in Thy house. This blessedness is both negative and positive. It arises out of that which we are freed from, and that which we gain.
1. The negative. On entering the house of God, we are delivered from the dangers which beset all who remain outside.
2. The positive.
(1) Love. Jehovahs house is specially the abode of love. It was love that thought of such a house for us; it was love that planned it, and love that built it. It is love too that fills it, and provides all its excellences.
(2) Companionship. It is not into a cell we entera prison, a desert, a place of isolation. It is into a home, a well-replenished habitation, a well-peopled city. Israels temple was such, to which the tribes went up. Much of lifes happiness is derived from the fellowship of heart with heart, and the communion of saints is no small portion of our joy, even here. Here, on earth, companionship is imperfect, and is sometimes a hindrance, a vexation. Not so hereafter, in the house not made with hands, the city of habitation, the eternal tabernacle.
(3) Service. They serve Him day and night in His temple. His servants shall serve Him. It is to serve, as well as to reign, that we are called. Such service is, in all its parts, blessedness. David knew the blessedness of service in his day.
(4) Glory. At present it is not glory, save in anticipation.H. Bonar, D.D.
Act. 7:48-50. The Greatness and Majesty of God.
I. The throne of His glory.Heaven. A throne.
1. Resplendent.Filled with His presence.
2. Exalted.High above this world (Psa. 103:19).
3. Powerful.Wielding authority over all created things.
II. The footstool of His feet.The earth. As such:
1. The work of His hands (Isa. 48:13).
2. Under His rule (Psa. 110:1).
3. Destined to share His glory (Isa. 60:13).
III. The place of His rest.
1. The temple which Solomon built, symbolically (Psa. 132:14).
2. The universe, which He himself built, really.
Learn.
1. The reverence due to God (Ecc. 5:2).
2. The hopefulness of earths future (Isa. 60:13).
3. The spirituality of divine worship (Joh. 4:21-24).
Act. 7:51-53. A Terrible Indictment.
I. Jehovahs law broken.And that by men who had received it at the hands of angels.
II. Jehovahs prophets murdered.And that by the men they had come to instruct.
III. Jehovahs Son slain.And that by those who should have been His protectors.
IV. Jehovahs Spirit resisted.And that by the men who had been pledged to obey.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(45) Brought in with Jesus.This is, of course, as in Heb. 4:8, the Joshua of the Old Testament. It would, perhaps, have been better, as a general rule, to have reproduced the Hebrew rather than the Greek form of Old Testament names in the English version of the New. On the other hand, there is, in this instance, something gained in our attention being called to the identity of the two names. It is noticeable that though Stephen was on his trial as a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, that name does not pass his lips as he speaks in his defence, except in this reference to the great captain of Israel. It is possible that under this reticence, there may have been a half-veiled reference to Him who, also bearing the name that marked Him out as a Saviour, had come, after another fashion, into the possession of the Gentiles. The word for possession is found in Act. 7:5, but not elsewhere in the New Testament. In the LXX. it is common enough, as in Gen. 47:11; Lev. 25:24; Deu. 32:51.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
45. Fathers that came after That is, the second generation; the first having died in the wilderness.
With Jesus Very capriciously, our translators here have put the Greek form of the name Jesus for its Hebrew, Joshua. (See note on Mat 1:1.)
The possession of the Gentiles The landed possession; that is, the territory
Unto the days of David This depends upon brought. The meaning is that our fathers of the second generation under Joshua brought the tabernacle into the land of the expelled Canaanites, retaining it until the time of David.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Which also our fathers, in their turn, brought in with Joshua (Jesus) when they entered on the possession of the nations, whom God thrust out before the face of our fathers, to the days of David,’
It was then brought into the land by another Jesus (Greek), by Joshua (Hebrew), when they took over ‘the possession of the nations’ at the time when God thrust them out before them. So God’s original ‘dwellingplace’ was God-given and came from outside the land, brought into it when God acted in order to give them the land as their possession, a land which had belonged to the nations. It was thus the God of the Tabernacle Who had given them the land. This situation continued until the days of David. They worshipped at the God-given, God designed, portable, wilderness Tabernacle received at the mountain of God outside the land.
The contrast with the Temple is quite clear and quite startling. It was not of the land, it was God-designed and the God Who was connected with it was powerfully effective. Being a tent, which could be used when necessary but was not a permanent home, it was suitable as an earthly place where the transcendent God could come to meet His people without being tied down. And it entered into the land with Him when God took possession of it. Thus possession of the land was linked with the Tabernacle, not the Temple. There were in fact many ordinary Jews who saw the Tabernacle as the ideal place of worship, including the Covenanters at Qumran. But what they failed to do, unlike Stephen, was to see beyond the Tabernacle to the heavenly Tabernacle (compare Heb 8:2; Heb 9:11). They were going backwards instead of forwards.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 7:45. With Jesus With Joshua. The word , rendered Gentiles, would more properly be rendered heathens in this place.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 7:45 . Which also our fathers with Joshua (in connection with Joshua, under whose guidance they stood), after having received it (from Moses), brought in (to Canaan). (only here in the N. T.) denotes the taking over from a former possessor, 4Ma 4:15 ; Dem. 1218, 23. 1045, 10; Polyb. ii. 4. 7; xxxi. 12. 7; Lucian. Dial. M. xi. 3.
] , as in Act 7:5 , possessio (LXX., Apocr., Joseph.). But is not to be explained as put for (Vulgate, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others), nor is taking possession of the land of the Gentiles (as is generally held), which is not expressed. Rather: the fathers brought in the tabernacle of the covenant during the possession of the Gentiles , i.e. while the Gentiles were in the state of possession . To this, then, significantly corresponds what further follows: . . . But of what the Gentiles were at that time possessors, is self-evident from namely, of the Holy Land, to which the in . refers according to the history well known to the hearers.
. . .] away from the face of our fathers , so that they withdrew themselves by flight from their view. Comp. LXX. Exo 34:24 ; Deu 11:23 . On the aorist form , from , see Winer, p. 86 [E. T. 111].
. .] is to be separated from the parenthetic clause , and to be joined to the preceding: which our fathers brought in until the days of David , so that it remained in Canaan until the time of David (inclusively). Kuinoel attaches it to . . .; for until the time of David the struggle with the inhabitants of Canaan lasted. This is in opposition to the connection, in which the important point was the duration of the tabernacle-service, as the sequel, paving the way for the transition to the real temple, shows; with David the new epoch of worship begins to dawn.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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;
Ver. 45. Brought in ] This argued and aggravated their levitatem plus quam desultoriam, monstrous giddiness in running after strange gods, having the true God so near them as never any people had. (Beza.) It might be said of them as it was once of Baldwin the apostate, that he had religionem Ephemeram, for each day a new religion: or as Lactantius writeth of some idolaters in his time, that they feigned what they pleased, and then feared what they feigned.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
45. .] absolute: introduced , viz. : not connected with ., see below.
.] Having inherited it , i.e. succeeded to its custody and privileges. The sense of ‘successores,’ ‘qui majores exceperunt,’ is ungrammatical; as also is that of ‘postea,’ ‘deinceps.’
] at (or ‘in’) their taking possession . The Vulg. rendering, ‘in possessionem gentium,’ is philologically inadmissible; ‘in terram a gentibus occupatam’ (Calvin, De Dieu, Grot., Kuin.) is still worse. The passage of the LXX, Num 32:5 , , brought forward to justify these renderings, is directly against them. The word is one of those examples of verbal nouns in – where the meaning hovers uncertainly between the act of doing and the thing done. Such is often the case with in St. Paul. Cf. for a very near approach to the concrete meaning of this word, Num 27:4 ; Num 27:7 . But, abstract or concrete, it always, as might be expected from the very composition of the word, is used of that final and settled possession which Israel took of the land, not of that transitory possession from which the gentes were driven out. So that Wordsw.’s rendering, “the portion, or possession of the Gentiles,” is out of the question.
The martyr combines rapidly a considerable period, during which this and this expulsion was taking place (for it was not complete till the time of David) in order to arrive at the next great event of his history, the substitution of the temple of Solomon for the tabernacle .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 7:45 . : having received in their turn, i.e. , from Moses, only here in N.T., cf. 4Ma 4:15 ; so also in classical Greek, in Dem. and in Polyb., cf. , “in their turn,” Herod., viii., 142: (on the technical meaning of , to which in the LXX is akin to the term of a deputy, or of one next to the king, see Deissmann, Bibelstudien , pp. 111, 112). , cf. Heb 4:8 , where Syr. Pesh. has “Jesus the son of Nun” (but not here). : “when they entered on the possession of the nations,” R.V., lit [212] , in the taking possession of the nations, i.e. , of the land inhabited by the nations (Wendt). A.V. follows Vulgate; frequent in LXX, cf. Jos., Ant. , ix., 1, 2, and Test. xii. Patr. , x., used by Philo in the sense of a portion given to keep (Grimm-Thayer). : Attic attraction, cf. Act 1:1 . : for a similar phrase cf. Deu 11:23 ; Deu 12:29-30 , etc., and frequently in LXX, Hebrew . . .: to be connected with the first part of the verse, “which also our fathers brought in unto the days of David” (inclusively), see Wendt, in loco, i.e. , “et mansit tabernaculum usque ad tempora Davidis” (Blass). Rendall takes the words as closely joined to , but the clause is rather subordinate.
[212] literal, literally.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
also. This should he read after “brought in”.
came after = received in succession. Greek. diadechomai. Only here. Revised Version “in their turn”.
Jesus = Joshua. Compare Heb 4:8. The Hebrew means “Jehovah the Saviour”. See note on Jos 1:1.
Gentiles. Greek. ethnos, same as nation, Act 7:7.
drave out = thrust out. Greek. exotheo. Only here and Act 27:39. Compare Act 7:27.
before = from. Greek. apo. App-104.
unto = until. Greek. heos.
David. Like Joseph, David was rejected, and tested by affliction before God gave him deliverance.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
45. .] absolute: introduced, viz. :-not connected with .,-see below.
.] Having inherited it, i.e. succeeded to its custody and privileges. The sense of successores, qui majores exceperunt, is ungrammatical; as also is that of postea, deinceps.
] at (or in) their taking possession. The Vulg. rendering, in possessionem gentium, is philologically inadmissible; in terram a gentibus occupatam (Calvin, De Dieu, Grot., Kuin.) is still worse. The passage of the LXX, Num 32:5, , brought forward to justify these renderings, is directly against them. The word is one of those examples of verbal nouns in – where the meaning hovers uncertainly between the act of doing and the thing done. Such is often the case with in St. Paul. Cf. for a very near approach to the concrete meaning of this word, Num 27:4; Num 27:7. But, abstract or concrete, it always, as might be expected from the very composition of the word, is used of that final and settled possession which Israel took of the land, not of that transitory possession from which the gentes were driven out. So that Wordsw.s rendering, the portion, or possession of the Gentiles, is out of the question.
The martyr combines rapidly a considerable period, during which this and this expulsion was taking place (for it was not complete till the time of David) in order to arrive at the next great event of his history, the substitution of the temple of Solomon for the tabernacle.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 7:45. , having received) in a long succession.-, in [or into]) when they subdued the peoples (in Canaan).- , the occupation [possession]) , LXX. , .
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Jesus
i.e. Joshua.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Which: Jos 3:11-14, Jos 18:1, Jdg 18:31, 1Sa 4:4, 1Ki 8:4, 1Ch 16:39, 1Ch 21:29
that came after: or, having received
Jesus: Jos 3:6, Jos 3:7, Joshua, Heb 4:8
whom: Act 13:19, Neh 9:24, Psa 44:2, Psa 78:55
unto: 2Sa 6:1-23, 1Ch 15:1 – 1Ch 17:27
Reciprocal: Exo 17:9 – unto Joshua Num 13:16 – Jehoshua Deu 3:28 – for he shall Deu 31:3 – and Joshua Deu 31:23 – shalt bring Jos 1:1 – Joshua Jos 3:14 – bearing the ark Jos 24:11 – the men 1Ch 7:27 – Jehoshuah
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
Act 7:45. Fathers that came after. Most of the older men died in the wilderness for the sin at Kadesh-barnea (Exo 32:8-11), and it was their descendants who brought in the tabernacle to Canaan. Jesus is from IESOUS, and Smith’s Bible Dictionary says it is “the Greek form of the name Joshua,” and Thayer’s lexicon agrees with it. Joshua was the leader of the Israelites when they crossed the Jordan. Possession of the Gentiles. These were heathen nations living in Canaan when the Israelites came, and they were attacked by Joshua and driven out (Joshua 12). Unto the days of David. Joshua did his duty in fighting the heathen, but on account of the unfaithfulness of Israel, God suffered some of the nations to remain in the land to harass them for many years.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 7:45. Which also our fathers. . . brought in with Joshua. Stephen is here rapidly sketching the history of the sacred tent of the Witness, which continued to be the sanctuary not merely in the wilderness, but in the land of Canaan, until the age of King Solomon. Our fathers, he says, received it (the Tabernacle) from Moses, and brought it into the Land of Promise, when, with Joshua as their leader, they commenced to take possession of the nations then occupying Canaan, and the expulsion of these peoples was not completed until the days of David.
Here Wordsworth remarks that the name of Jesus, though ever in the thoughts of St. Stephen, and as it were hovering on his lips in almost every sentence, is never expressed in his speech, but here, when it does not mean Jesus of Nazareth, but Jesus (or Joshua) the son of Nun. How much wisdom was there in this! If he had openly spoken as he felt concerning Jesus of Nazareth, he would have been stopped at once by the rage of his hearers, and the Christian Church would never have had the speech of St. Stephen: there was Divine eloquence in his silence.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 44
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
45. Jesus, E. V., in this verse, should read Joshua, as in R. V. The solution consists in the fact that Joshua is a Hebrew word, which means Jesus in Greek. The great general reason why Moses could not lead Israel into the promised land was because of his symbolic character as the law-giver of Israel. [To be sure, he blurred his experience of sanctification by impatience at the waters of Meribah, but soon regained lost ground.] If Moses had led Israel into Canaan, it would typically involve the conclusion that we can be sanctified by good works, i. e., through the law, which is utterly impossible; hence it would not do for Moses to lead them in. As Aaron, the high priest stood at the head of the officiating clergy, he could not enter the land lest the dogma of sanctification by church rites, loyalty and obedience to the ruling ministers could not sanctify you. Miriam, the prophetess, represents the fire-baptized holiness evangelists. If she had entered the land, it would have involved the conclusion that red-hot holiness preachers can sanctify you, which is utterly untrue. As none but Joshua, which means Jesus, could lead them in, it settles the matter in the symbolic theology of the Old Testament, that none but Jesus can sanctify a soul.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 45
Jesus, Joshua, the successor of Moses. Jesus is the Greek, and Joshua the Hebrew form.–Possession of the Gentiles; Canaan.–Unto the days of David; that is, it was kept until his days.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
7:45 Which also our fathers that came after {s} brought in with Jesus into the {t} possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out {u} before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
(s) Delivered from hand to hand.
(t) This is said using the figure of speech metonymy, and refers to the countries which the Gentiles possessed.
(u) God drove them out that they should yield up the possession of those countries to our fathers when they entered into the land.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The tabernacle was so important that the Israelites brought it into the Promised Land when they conquered it under Joshua’s leadership. The Greek form of "Joshua" is "Jesus." God drove out the Canaanites in faithfulness to His promise to give the land to His people. The tabernacle continued to be God’s ordained center of worship through David’s reign.