To resist – <\/B>That is, they were not able to answer his arguments.<\/P>
The wisdom – <\/B>This properly refers to his knowledge of the Scriptures; his skill in what the Jews esteemed to be wisdom – acquaintance with their sacred writings, opinions, etc.<\/P>
And the spirit – <\/B>This has been commonly understood of the Holy Spirit, by which he was aided; but it rather means the energy, power, or ardor of Stephen. He evinced a spirit of zeal and sincerity which they could not withstand; which served, more than mere argument could have done, to convince them that he was right. The evidence of sincerity, honesty, and zeal in a public speaker will often go further to convince the great mass of mankind, than the most able argument if delivered in a cold and indifferent manner.<\/P><\/p>\nFuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Verse 10<\/span>. They there not able to resist the wisdom<\/B><\/I>, c.] He was wise<\/I>, well exercised and experienced<\/I>, in Divine things and, as appears by his defence, in the following chapter, well versed in the Jewish history. The spirit by which he spake was the Holy Spirit, and its power was irresistible. They were obliged either to yield<\/I> to its teachings, or were confounded<\/I> by its truth. Several MSS. add to this verse, because he reproved them with<\/I> boldness, they could not resist the truth<\/I>. This reading is not genuine, though it exists (but in different forms) in some good MSS.<\/P><\/p>\n Not able to resist; <\/B>they did oppose it, but ineffectually. <\/P> The wisdom: The foolishness of God is wiser than men, <\/I>1Co 1:25<\/I><\/span>. What then is his wisdom, through which this holy man spake? <\/P> The spirit; <\/B>the Holy Ghost directing him, and putting a Divine power upon what he spake, according to the promise, Mat 10:20<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 10. not able to resist the wisdomand the spirit by which he spake<\/B>What he said, and the powerwith which he spake it, were alike resistless.<\/P><\/p>\n And they were not able to resist the wisdom<\/strong>,…. In Beza’s most ancient copy, and in another manuscript it is added, “which was in him”; that divine wisdom, which the Spirit of wisdom gave him; they were not a match for him with respect to the knowledge of divine things; they could not answer the wise arguments he made use of, fetched out of the Scriptures of truth, in which he was well versed, and had a large knowledge of:<\/p>\n and the Spirit by which he spake<\/strong>; that is, the Holy Spirit, as the above exemplars of Beza, and the Ethiopic version read; the meaning is, they could not resist the Holy Spirit, by which Stephen spake, so as to overcome him, or put Stephen to silence, or confute him; otherwise they did resist him, or oppose themselves to him, but in vain, and without success; for they always resisted the Holy Ghost in Christ and in his apostles, as their fathers before them resisted him in the prophets, as Stephen observes to them, Ac 7:51<\/span> hereby was fulfilled what our Lord promised to his disciples, Mt 10:19<\/span>.<\/p>\n They were not able to withstand <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Imperfect active of <\/SPAN><\/span>, to have strength, and ingressive second aorist active (intransitive) infinitive of <\/SPAN><\/span>. They continued unable (without strength enough) to take a stand against. Stephen knocked them down, Saul included, as fast as they got up. Stephen was like a battery charged and in action.<\/P> The wisdom and spirit <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Dative case. They stood up against Stephen’s wisdom and the Holy Spirit “by whom he spoke” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Instrumental case and the relative agrees with “Spirit.” He kept on speaking so (<\/SPAN><\/span>, imperfect active). It was a desperate situation. <\/P> <\/p>\n They were not able [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See on Luk 14:30<\/span>; Luk 16:3<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And they were not able to resist,”<\/strong> (kai ouk ischuon antistenai) “And they were not (able) strong enough to stand up against,” not astute enough to successfully counter the testimony of Stephen, who seemed to be ready for their testimony of enmity against the gospel and doctrines of Jesus Christ, 1Pe 3:15<\/span>; 1Ti 3:15-16<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “The wisdom and the spirit,”<\/strong> (te sophia kai to pneumati “Either the wisdom or the spirit, the disposition,” of Stephen who was one of the seven (deacon-servants) and ministers first chosen to assist the twelve apostles in the ministry of the church, Act 6:3-5<\/span>; Act 7:55<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “By which he spake,”<\/strong> (ho elalei) “With which he spoke out,” or spoke forth, as later admonished by Paul for every believer and witness in the Lord’s church, even to this day, Eph 5:18-19<\/span>; Col 3:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n (10) They were not able.<\/strong>Better, had no strength;<\/em> the verb being somewhat more forcible than that commonly translated to be able.<\/p>\n To resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spake.<\/strong>It is remarkable that Stephen is the first Christian teacher of whom wisdom is thus specially predicted. In the Gospels it is ascribed to our Lord (Mat. 13:54<\/span>; Luk. 2:40<\/span>; Luk. 2:52<\/span>); and we read of the wisdom of Solomon (Mat. 12:42<\/span>). In a writer like St. Luke, it implies something higher even than the consolation or prophecy from which Barnabas took his namewider thoughts, a clearer vision of the truth, the development of what had been before latent in hints and parables and dark sayings. The speech that follows in the next chapter, may be accepted as an example, as far as circumstances allowed, of the method and power of his general teaching.<\/p>\n 10<\/strong>. <\/strong> Not able to resist<\/strong> Five synagogues against one man were unable to resist his prowess. <\/p>\n Wisdom<\/strong> That insight into the independence of Christianity which foresaw the vanishing destiny of Judaism. <\/p>\n Spirit<\/strong> That blending (compare Act 6:5<\/span>; Act 6:8<\/span>) of perfect faith <\/strong> in distinctive Christianity, of divine grace <\/strong> through its experience, and of power <\/strong> to illustrate its truth with miracle.<\/p>\n ‘And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke.’<\/p>\n Stephen was clearly a capable debater and on top of that was also enabled in wisdom by the Holy Spirit. Thus as his opponents discussed with him they found that their arguments were being defeated. They became aware that all too often Stephen was winning the argument. They began to find the things that they saw as most precious marginalised. We may surmise that they argued about the things that Stephen would lay down in his speech, that Christ was the coming Prophet and Righteous one, that men should look more to Him than to the Temple, and that presence in the land mattered little one way or the other. What mattered was to follow Christ and obey Him.<\/p>\n The account concentrates on the response of those who took this badly. To be in the ‘holy land’ and in the ‘holy Temple’ meant a huge amount to them. They hoped that it might help to get them obtain eternal life. And now they felt as though their foundations were being taken away. But there may well have been some who found themselves convinced, and became Christians.<\/p>\n Act 6:10-11<\/span> . The is to be explained, not of the Jewish learning, but of the Christian wisdom<\/em> (Luk 21:15<\/span> ; and see on Eph 1:8<\/span> ; Eph 1:17<\/span> ), to which the Jewish learning of the opponents could not make any resistance. Comp. 1Co 1:17<\/span> ff; 1Co 2:6<\/span> ff. The was the . , [186] with which he was filled, Act 6:3<\/span> ; Act 6:5<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] Dative of the instrument<\/em> . It refers, as respects sense, to both<\/em> preceding nouns, but is grammatically determined according to the latter<\/em> , Matthiae, p. 991.<\/p>\n ] then<\/em> , namely, after they had availed nothing in open disputation against him. “Hic agnosce morem improborum; ubi veritate discedunt impares, ad mendacia confugiunt,” Erasmus, Paraphr<\/em> .<\/p>\n ] they instigated, secretly instructed<\/em> . Comp. Appian. i. 74, . The Latin subornarunt<\/em> , or, as the Vulg. has it, submiserunt<\/em> (Suet. Num 28<\/span>Num 28<\/span> ).<\/p>\n . . .] provisional summary statement of what these men asserted that they had heard as the essential contents of the utterances of Stephen in question. For their more precisely formulated literal statement, see Act 6:13-14<\/span> .<\/p>\n [186] But is not added; for “adversarii sentiebant Spiritum<\/em> esse in Stephano; Spiritum sanctum<\/em> in eo esse non sciebant,” Bengel<\/em> .<\/p>\n 10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 10. By which he spake<\/strong> ] “Because he convinced them with great boldness, neither could they withstand the truth.” These words are found in one very ancient copy, as Beza witnesseth. <\/p>\n Act 6:10<\/span> . : the whole phrase is an exact fulfilment of Luk 21:15<\/span> , cf.<\/em> 1Co 1:17<\/span> ; 1Co 2:6<\/span> . , as Wendt points out, was the Holy Spirit with which Stephen was filled, cf.<\/em> 3, 5. Vulgate renders “Spiritui Sancto qui<\/em> loquebatur,” as if it read ; see critical notes.<\/p>\n able = strong enough See Act 15:10. <\/p>\n resist. Greek. anthistemi. Compare Luk 21:15. <\/p>\n spirit. See note on Act 6:3. <\/p>\n spake. App-121. <\/p>\n Act 6:10. , the wisdom) Wisdom is a most powerful thing (Act 6:8).- , and the Spirit) The epithet Holy is not added, as in Act 6:3; Act 6:5. His adversaries felt that there was a spirit in Stephen: they did not know that it was the Holy Spirit who was in him.<\/p>\n able: Act 5:39, Act 7:51, Exo 4:12, Isa 54:17, Jer 1:18, Jer 1:19, Jer 15:20, Eze 3:27, Mat 10:19, Mat 10:20, Luk 12:11, Luk 12:12, Luk 21:15, Joh 7:46 <\/p>\n the spirit: Job 32:8, Job 32:18, Mic 3:8, Luk 1:17, 1Co 2:4 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 1Sa 24:16 – Is this Dan 1:17 – God Mat 7:29 – having Mat 22:22 – they marvelled Mar 1:22 – they were Mar 13:11 – take Luk 4:22 – the gracious Luk 14:6 – General Act 4:16 – and we Act 6:5 – Stephen Act 6:8 – full Act 7:55 – full Act 9:22 – confounded Act 9:29 – disputed Act 13:12 – being Act 13:45 – spake 1Co 1:27 – General Eph 1:17 – the spirit 1Th 2:2 – much<\/p>\n 0<\/p>\n Act 6:10. One part of the definition for resist in the lexicon is “to withstand,” and means that although the Jews from all the places named combined in disputing with Stephen, they were not able to meet his claims for the doctrine of Christ. Wisdom is from SOPHIA which Thayer defines, “Wisdom, broad and full intelligence.” Spirit is from PNEUMA which the same lexicon defines in this passage, “The disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one; the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire.” The personal intelligence of Stephen was backed up by the Spirit that was given him through the laying on of the hands of an apostle. This explains why those envious Jews could not “meet the arguments” that he put before them.<\/p>\n Act 6:10. And they were not able to resist the wisdom. In the disputation the doctors of those great synagogues just mentioned, were fairly beaten in argument by the divinely-inspired wisdom of Stephen, who met them on their own ground, showing how marvellously the allusions and promises contained in the law and in the prophets were fulfilled in the person of Jesus.<\/p>\n What now was there in Stephens preaching which so powerfully affected the rulers in Israel, which even alienated the people hitherto so favourably inclined to the new sect? Was his teaching different to that of Peter or John? There is no doubt that Stephen, with the light of the Holy Ghost shining clear and full on his early and elaborate training, saw more plainly than the older and comparatively untaught apostles how transitory after all was that law of Moses now more than ever fanatically reverenced and observed; how faded were the glories of that Temple, the object now, more than at any previous time, of a passionate love. The sacred law, the holy and beautiful house, in the days when our Lord and His apostles lived on earth, were all that remained to the Jew of his ancestral glories; their holy land was ruled by strangers, their name and fame were only a memory; so they surrounded the law of Moses and the house on Mount Sion with a strange unreasoning devotion; and when Stephen told them that these things were only shadows which were even then passing away, it was an easy matter, by a very slight perversion of his words, for the Jewish leaders, Pharisee and Sadducee, to excite among the people a storm of patriotic indignation against one who dared to teach such hateful doctrines.<\/p>\n See notes on verse 9<\/p>\n 10. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke. Oh! what a contrast we here have between the wisdom, intellect, learning and resources of the world and the wisdom of God! Here, with the greatest intellectualist and scholar the world could produce, surrounded by a platoon of preachers, one humble, uncultured layman proves more than a match for them all; as the Holy Ghost says they were unable to resist the wisdom and spirit with which Stephen spoke. See the whole crowd with their mighty leader, Saul of Tarsus, put in total eclipse and literally snowed under by a solitary layman. Therefore, to their ineffaceable shame, they resort to bribery, raising up false witnesses that they may bring an accusation against him. Stephen preached the perfect sufficiency of Jesus, His vicarious atonement and cleansing blood, received and appropriated by the Holy Ghost, of course relegating the types and shadows of the Mosaic dispensation to bygone years, no longer significant because superseded and verified by the great Antitype. This they construed as inveighing against the law of Moses. This notable history has a thousand parallels at the present day. We can not preach the perfect sufficiency of Jesus only and the omnipotence of the present Holy Ghost in full salvation and the perfect sufficiency of Gods Word, doctrinally, institutionally, legally and every other way, without at least indirectly reflecting on the human institutions and bogus legislation of fallen ecclesiasticisms. Then they cry out that we are inveighing against the church, whereas we are defending the church of God with all our might, precisely as Stephen did, when they charged him with disloyalty to the church and killed him for it. He was the first martyr, leading the way and showing the people how to die for the truth. Two hundred millions have followed in his bloody track, like Stephen, dying under charges of disloyalty to what carnal preachers call the church, as they did in case of Stephen. If they had the co-operation of the secular arm these defenders of what they call the church would kill us this day, as they did Stephen and the mighty host of his successors. Beware of the clamor of church loyalty! That is the very shibboleth that piled the rocks on Stephen, fed the martyrs to the lions and burnt them at the stake. It is impossible to be loyal to God and disloyal to His church. When they talk to you about loyalty to God, open your Bible and shout Amen! When they talk to you about loyalty to the church, look out! that is the old hackneyed cry of persecution, from Stephen down to the present day.<\/p>\n Verse 10 <\/p>\n The preaching of Stephen seems not to have been by virtue of his office of deacon, as that office was constituted expressly for the service of tables, that is, for attending to the secular business connected with money and accounts.<\/p>\n 6:10 {8} And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.<\/p>\n (8) False teachers, because they will not be overcome, flee from disputations and resort to manifest and open slandering and false accusations.<\/p>\n And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. To resist – That is, they were not able to answer his arguments. The wisdom – This properly refers to his knowledge of the Scriptures; his skill in what the Jews esteemed to be wisdom – acquaintance with their … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 6:10”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27070","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27070","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27070"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27070\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"