Bibelkommentare

Acts 7:2. And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers,— Dr. Benson has illustrated this speech of St. Stephen in a large and very judicious manner, to whom we shall be frequently obliged; and the following introductory remarks from Dr. Ward's 39th Dissertation will serve to shew its general propriety. The charge brought against Stephen, says he, consisted of two parts: that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the temple where they were then assembled, and change the rites of Moses, Ch. Acts 6:14. The foundation of this charge seems to have been, that Stephen, in disputing with them, had plainly proved, that Jesus was the Messiah. Hence his accusers inferred their charge, fixing upon him their own consequences as his affections, and that with a design to take away his life, for which reason they might justly be called false witnesses, Acts 7:13. But though Stephen had not directly asserted these things, yet were they true in themselves, and might be inferred from the law and the prophets (Deuteronomy 15:0.). He could not therefore deny them; and to have owned them in express terms, would have been to give himself up to their rage and fury. The method therefore which he takes in his defence is, first, to shew them, from theirwritings, that all their former dispensations were to issue in that of the Messiah; and he begins with God's calling Abraham from his country and family, and promising to him and his posterity the land of Canaan for a possession; and it is remarkable, that he does not call it an everlasting possession, as it is called Gen 17:8 which might have seemed not so consistent with their forfeiture of it upon their rejecting the Messiah. Then he observes to them, how their fathers rejected Moses, after the clearest proofs of his mission, and that they were punished for it in the wilderness; and this he does, to prepare them to consider what they might justly expect upon rejecting Christ. He reminds them likewise, that Moses himself had declared to them, that another prophet was to arise, like him, whom they were ordered to hear. This was the Messiah; and his being like to Moses must consist in his bringing in a new dispensation, and confirming it with miracles, as Moses had done. This seems to respect the latter article of the charge;—and thus farthey heard him patiently. He then proceeds to speak of the temple, which relates to the former part of the accusation: and here he uses such depreciating expressions, as, though taken from the prophets, could not be agreeable to them, and very probably inflamed their minds; but when he came to charge them with the murder of Jesus, calling him the Just One, that is, the Messiah, they could no longer bear with him; but their passions rose to such a height, that they gnashed their teeth at him, and very probably made such a disturbance, that he could not proceed in what he designed to say further; though we find that Peter had twice before taken the same method, and charged them as expressly with the death of Jesus, Ch. 2: and 4: but Peter had, in both cases, the advantage of a present miracle to support him, and give weight to what he said; and we find that the council were deterred by that from proceeding to extremities, Ch. Acts 4:16. The Jewish rulers, before our Saviour's death, were apprehensive that he designed, by gaining over the populace, to set himself up for a king; and that, in consequence of this, the Romans would come and destroy their city, John 11:48. This they hoped to prevent, by taking him off; but, after his death, finding that the apostles not only went on to propagate the same theme of religion, and support it with miracles, as he had done, but also charged them with murdering him, whom his followers asserted to be the Messiah, they seemed now to be more immediately concerned for their own security. However, at first they endeavour to prevent the spreading of this doctrine, and to deter the preachers of it by less severities, as in the case of Peter and John; but when they found that those would not do, it is not improbable they might resolve upon greater; and thinking Stephen a proper subject for their purpose, might determine, if possible, to take away his life; which seems more likely from Ch. Act 5:33 where it is said, that the Jewish senate took counsel to slay the apostles, as if they had not been dissuaded by Gamaliel. However, as that could not have been done judicially, and in form of law, but by a trial before the Roman governor, who might not think their charge against him sufficientto put him to death, there might be a particular design of Providence thus to honour himwith being the first martyr for Christianity, and permit him to be taken off in such a manner, as drew no civil disorders after it. For we do not find that any notice was taken of this fact by the Roman governor; though one would think that he could hardly have omitted to make some inquiries about it. But it was easy for the council to allege in their excuse, that indeed they did call that man to an account for some offences against their law, who was so far from clearing himself, that he persisted in them with blasphemy, which was a crime of so heinous a nature with them, that they could not restrain the mob from dragging him out, and stoning him immediately. Upon such a representation, the governor might think it more advisable to drop any further inquiry, than by proceeding in it to inflame so turbulent a nation. Upon the whole, this speech of Stephen, so far as it goes, seems to be a proper reply to the charge laid against him; but what he would have added further, if he had not been prevented, may be difficult to say. By the methods taken to bring about this charge, and the behaviour of the Jews at the trial, it seems probable, that the council designed, if possible, to take away his life, as a terror to others; and Divine Providence, for wise ends, thought fit to permit them to accomplish their desig

return to '

Acts 7:4. And from thence; when his father was dead, &c.— See Genesis 26:32. Abraham was not Terah's eldest, but his youngest son; though, by way of honour and distinction, Moses has mentioned him the first of the three, as being the great patriarch of the Jewish nation. For Haran was Terah's eldest son, who died in Ur of the Chaldees, his native country; and who left a daughter, called Milcah, old enough to be married to Nahor. When therefore Terah was seventy years of age, then was Haran born, being his eldest son; Nahor, his second son, was born some years after; and Abraham, his youngest son, was born sixty years after his brother Haran, and when his father Terah was one hundred and thirty years of age. Now seventy-five added to one hundred and thirty, make up two hundred and five, the age at which Terah died in the land of Charran. See Archbishop Usher's Annals, A.M. 1948

return to '

Acts 7:5. And he gave him none inheritance in it, &c.— Probably Canaan was not at that time so universally given to idolatry as Chaldea; for there Abraham met with Melchisedech, who was a worshipper of the true God; and as he was a king, very likely his subjects were not idolaters; but in Chaldea idolatry must have had a large spread, when Terah's family, nay, and most likely Abraham himself, was infected; for St. Paul calls him, Romans 4:5. τον ασεβη, an ungodly person, or an idolater; for that is the word by which he usually intends to signify an idolater. Therefore the calling Abraham into Canaan at that time, was a likely method to preserve him from the further infection of idolatry, as it removed him from his kindred, who would have been apt to have tempted him more than strangers;—and as he was directed to a land where idolatry had not then spread so much. Nay, yet further to deter Abraham, God intimated to him, that in some future generations that very land of Canaan should become notorious for idolatry, and then God would take it from the inhabitants, and give it to him for a possession, even to his seed after him; for so the sentence should properly be read. It is plain that Abraham had not a foot of land in Canaan; for he bought a burying-place to bury his dead.

return to '

Acts 7:6. Sojourn in a strange land;— Some think that this is said in opposition to their sojourning as strangers in the land of Canaan, Heb 11:9 which was not a strange land, but theirs by divine promise. But God himself teaches us otherwise, Exo 6:4 where he calls Canaan the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they, that is, Abraham and his descendants, had hitherto been strangers; for they were not as yet possessed of it, though they had a good title to it. This is proper to be taken notice of, in order to explain what immediately follows. See the note on Genesis 15:13.

return to '

Acts 7:8. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision:— St. Stephen, the reader may observe, draws no inferences. If he had denied the charge laid against him, as there were two witnesses who swore against him, he had been condemned immediately. If he had owned the charge, he would likewise thereupon have fallen under immediate condemnation. If he had gone about directly to have defended the truth of what the witnesses had alleged, the Sanhedrim would not have had the patience to have heard him. As it was, he proceeded in the only possible way to be heard so long as till he had vindicated himself; that is, by laying down the premises, and leaving them to draw the proper inferences from what he said: just as our Lord, in like cases, had often spoken in parables. Now the inferences to be drawn from what was thus far said, are plainly these: 1st, That in different ages and circumstances positive and external rites have been different; and holiness was not originally confined to one particular place; as appears plainly from the history of Abraham, and from what follows concerning Moses: 2nd, That temporal prosperity, and the favour of the multitude, are not always the lot of the people of God, as appears from the cruel treatment of righteous Abraham's more immediate descendants:3rdly, That the divine favour is not confined through all ages to the observation of any one sort of positive institutions;forAbrahamwasinthefavourof God before circumcision was instituted.

return to '

Acts 7:9. Moved with envy, sold Joseph— The plain inference to be drawn from hence was, that they might learn from this example, to abate their hard thoughts of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they, in like manner, through envy, delivered into the hands of strangers, who dealt cruelly with him. Further, from the treatment which Joseph met with, they might see how holy and good persons may be treated in a cruel and unjust manner by men, and at the same time be highly in the favour of God: and therefore, in the present case, it behoved them to examine carefully, and to judge with candour: and hence too they might learn, that holiness and acceptance with God are not confined to any one particular country. For God shewed favour to Joseph in Egypt, amongst an idolatrous and wicked people.

return to '

Acts 7:14. Threescore and fifteen souls.— See the notes on Genesis 20:18.

return to '

Acts 7:16. And were carried over, &c.— It is not improbable, that the bones of the other eleven patriarchs might be carried along with the bones of Joseph, when the children of Israel went out of Egypt, Exo 13:19 and be afterwards buried along with his bones, when Israel came into Canaan. There was the same reason for them to desire to be buried there, as there was for Joseph; that is, their firm belief, that God would in due time fulfil his promise, in giving Canaan unto Israel for a possession;

(Comp. Genesis 50:25.Hebrews 11:22; Hebrews 11:22.) and accordingly some of the ancient Jews affirm that the bodies of the patriarchs were carried and buried along with Joseph's; and St. Jerome asserts, that the twelve patriarchs were buried at Sychem. 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 23:0. There Jacob was buried. Jacob bought a field of the children of Ha-mor. There Joseph was buried. We may observe 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 history, and left the rest, which would have interrupted the current of his discourse, to be supplied in the mind of the hearer.—The first land which these strangers, these patriarchs bought, was for a sepulchre. They sought for a country in heaven. Perhaps the whole sentence, Act 7:15-16 might be rendered thus: So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over to 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. The reader will find much on this subject in Chais's note on Genesis 23:16. Houbigant on Genesis 33:19. Biscoe's Lectures, p. 607. Whitby, L'Enfant, Sir Norton Knatchbull, &c.

return to '