Commentaires bibliques

When our Lord Jesus called his apostles out to be employed in services and sufferings for him, he told them that yet the last should be first, and the first last, which was remarkably fulfilled in St. Stephen and St. Paul, who were both of them late converts, in comparison of the apostles, and yet got the start of them both in services and sufferings; for God, in conferring honours and favours, often crosses hands. In this chapter we have the martyrdom of Stephen, the first martyr of the Christian church, who led the van in the noble army. And therefore his sufferings and death are more largely related than those of any other, for direction and encouragement to all those who are called out to resist unto blood, as he did. Here is, I. His defence of himself before the council, in answer to the matters and things he stood charged with, the scope of which is to show that it was no blasphemy against God, nor any injury at all to the glory of his name, to say that the temple should be destroyed and the customs of the ceremonial law changed. And, 1. He shows this by going over the history of the Old Testament, and observing that God never intended to confine his favours to that place, or that ceremonial law; and that they had no reason to expect he should, for the people of the Jews had always been a provoking people, and had forfeited the privileges of their peculiarity: nay, that that holy place and that law were but figures of good things to come, and it was no disparagement at all to them to say that they must give place to better things, Ac 7:1-50. And then, 2. He applies this to those that prosecuted him, and sat in judgment upon him, sharply reproving them for their wickedness, by which they had brought upon themselves the ruin of their place and nation, and then could not bear to hear of it, Ac 7:51-53. II. The putting of him to death by stoning him, and his patient, cheerful, pious submission to it, Ac 7:54-60.

This chapter Acts 7 contains the defense of Stephen before the Sanhedrin, or Great Council of the Jews. There has been great diversity of opinion about the object which Stephen had in view in this defense, and about the reason why he introduced at such length the history of the Jewish people. But a few remarks may perhaps show his design. He was accused of "blasphemy in speaking against the institutions of Moses and the temple, that is, against everything held sacred among the Jews." To meet this charge, he gives a statement, at length, of his belief in the Mosaic religion, in the great points of their history, and in the fact that God had interposed in a remarkable manner in defending them from dangers. By this historical statement he avows his full belief in the divine origin of the Jewish religion, and thus "indirectly" repels the charge of blasphemy. It is further to be remembered that this was the best way of securing the "attention" of the Council. If he had entered upon an abstract defense, he might expect to be stopped by their cavils or their clamor.

But the history of their own nation was a favorite topic among the Jews. They were always ready to listen to an account of their ancestors; and to secure their attention, nothing more was necessary than to refer to their illustrious lives and deeds. Compare Psalm 78; Psalm 105; Psalm 106; Psalm 135; Ezekiel 20:In this way, Stephen secured their attention, and practically repelled the charge of speaking reproachfully of Moses and the temple. He showed them that he had as firm a belief as they in the great historical facts of their nation. It is to be remembered, also, that this speech was broken off in the midst Acts 7:53-54, and it is therefore difficult to state fully what the design of Stephen was. It seems clear, however, that he intended to convict them of guilt, by showing that they sustained the same character as their forefathers had manifested Acts 7:51-52; and there is some probability that he intended to show that the acceptable worship of God was not to be confined to any place particularly, from the fact that the worship of Abraham, and the patriarchs, and Moses, was acceptable before the temple was raised (Acts 7:2, etc.), and from the declaration in Acts 7:48, that God does not dwell in temples made with hands. All that can be said here is:

(1) That Stephen showed his full belief in the divine appointment of Moses and the historical facts of their religion;

(2) That he laid "the foundation" of an argument to show that those things were not perpetually binding, and that acceptable worship might be offered in other places and in another manner than at the temple.

It has been asked in what way Luke became acquainted with this speech so as to repeat it. The Scripture has not informed us. But we may remark:

(1) That Stephen was the first martyr. His death and the incidents connected with it could not but be a matter of interest to the first Christians, and the substance of his defense, at least, would be familiar to the disciples. There is no improbability in supposing that imperfect copies might be preserved by writing, and circulated among them.

(2) Luke was the companion of Paul. (See the introduction to the Gospel by Luke.) Paul was present when this defense was delivered, and was a man who would be likely to remember what was said on such an occasion. From him Luke might have derived the account of this defense. In regard to this discourse, it may be further remarked, that it is not necessary to suppose that Stephen was inspired. Even if there should be found inaccuracies, as some critics have pretended, in the address, it would not militate against its genuineness. It is the defense of a man on trial under a serious charge; not a man of whom there is evidence that he was "inspired," but a pious, devoted, heavenly-minded man. All that the sacred narrative is responsible for is the correctness of the report. Luke alleges only that such a speech was in fact delivered, without affirming that every particular in it is correct.

Stephen, being permitted to answer for himself relative to the charge of blasphemy brought against him by his accusers, gives a circumstantial relation of the call of Abraham, when he dwelt in Mesopotamia, in Charran, etc., Acts 7:1-8. The history of Jacob and Joseph, Acts 7:9-17. The persecution of their fathers in Egypt, Acts 7:18, Acts 7:19. The history of Moses and his acts till the exodus from Egypt, vv. 20-37. The rebellion and idolatry of the Israelites in the wilderness, Acts 7:38-43 The erection of the tabernacle of witness, which continued till the time of David, Acts 7:44-46. Of the temple built by Solomon for that God who cannot be confined to temples built by hands, Acts 7:47-50. Being probably interrupted in the prosecution of his discourse, he urges home the charge of rebellion against God, persecution of his prophets, the murder of Christ, and neglect of their own law against them, Acts 7:51-53. They are filled with indignation, and proceed to violence, Acts 7:54. He sees the glory of God, and Christ at the right hand of the Father; and declares the glorious vision, Acts 7:55, Acts 7:56. They rush upon him, drag him out of the city, and stone him, Acts 7:57, Acts 7:58. He involves the Lord Jesus, prays for his murderers, and expires, Acts 7:59, Acts 7:60.

Acts 7:1-53. Stephen’s Defence

CHAPTER 7

Acts 7:1. ἄρα is wanting in A B C א, min. Vulg. Cant. Germ. Bed. Deleted by Lachm. But if not genuine, it would hardly have been added, as it was so little necessary for the sense that, on the contrary, the question expressed in a shorter and more precise form appears to be more suitable to the standpoint and the temper of the high priest.

Acts 7:3. τὴν γῆν] The article is wanting in Elz. Scholz, against far preponderant attestation. A copyist’s error. Restored by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Born.

Acts 7:5. αὐτῷ δοῦναι] δοῦναι αὐτῷ is decidedly attested; so Lachm. Tisch. Born.

Acts 7:7. δουλεύσωσι] Tisch. reads δουλεύσουσιν, in accordance, no doubt, with A C D, VSS. Ir., but it is a mechanical repetition from Acts 7:6.

Acts 7:11. τὴν γῆν Αἰγύπτου] A B C D* (which has ἐΦʼ ὅλης τῆς Αἰγ.) א, 81, VSS. have τὴν Αἴγυπτον. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. But how easily might ΓΗΝ be passed over after THN! and then the change ΑἴγυπτΟΝ became necessary.

Acts 7:12. Instead of σῖτα, σιτία is to be received, with Lachm. Tisch. Born.[189]

ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ] Lachm. Tisch. read ΕἸς ΑἼΓΥΠΤΟΝ, following A B C E א, 40. ἘΝ ΑἸΓ. is an explanatory supplement to ὌΝΤΑ.

Acts 7:14. After ΣΥΓΓΈΝ. Elz. has ΑὙΤΟῦ, in opposition to witnesses of some importance (also א), although it is defended by Born. A prevalent addition.

Acts 7:15. ΔΈ] A C E א, 15, 18, VSS. have ΚΑῚ ΚΑΤΈΒΗ, which Griesb. has recommended, Rinck preferred, and Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. D, 40, Syr. p. Cant. have no conjunction at all; so Born., but from the LXX. Deuteronomy 10:22; ΚΑῚ ΚΑΤ. is to be preferred as best attested.

Acts 7:16. ᾯ] Elz. reads Ὅ, against decisive testimony. Mistaking the attraction.

ΤΟῦ ΣΥΧΈΜ] Lachm. reads ΤΟῦ ἘΝ Σ., according to A E א** min. Copt. Syr. p. Tol. B C א* min. Sahid. Arm. have merely ἘΝ Σ. An alteration, because this ΣΥΧΈΜ was apprehended, like the preceding, as the name of a town, and the parallel with Genesis 33:19 was not recognised.

Acts 7:17. ὩΜΟΛΌΓΗΣΕΝ] So Tisch. Lachm. But Elz. and Scholz have ὬΜΟΣΕΝ, against AB C א, 15, 36, and some VSS. A more precisely defining gloss from the LXX., instead of which D E have ἘΠΗΓΓΕΊΛΑΤΟ (so Born.).

Acts 7:18. After ἝΤΕΡΟς Lachm. has ἘΠʼ ΑἼΓΥΠΤΟΝ, according to A B C א, min. and several VSS. An exegetical addition from the LXX.

Acts 7:20. After ΠΑΤΡΌς Elz. has ΑὙΤΟῦ. See on Acts 7:14.

Acts 7:21. ἘΧΤΕΘΈΝΤΑ ΔῈ ΑὐΤΌΝ] Lachm. Born. read ἘΧΤΕΘΈΝΤΟς ΔῈ ΑὐΤΟῦ, according to AB C D א, min. A correction in point of style.

Acts 7:22. ΠΆΣῌ ΣΟΦΊᾼ] A C E א, VSS. Or. (twice) Bas. Theodoret have ἘΝ ΠΆΣῌ ΣΟΦ. So Tisch. D* has ΠᾶΣΑΝ ΤῊΝ ΣΟΦΊΑΝ. So Born. Interpretations of the Recepta, in favour of which is also the reading πάσης σοφίας in B, which is a copyist’s error.

ἐν before ἔργ. (Elz. Scholz) is as decidedly condemned by external testimonies as the αὐτοῦ after ἔργοις, omitted in Elz., is attested.

Acts 7:26. συνήλασεν] B C D א, min. and some VSS. have συνήλλασεν or συνήλλασσεν. Valck. has preferred the former, Griesb. recommended the latter, and Lachm. Born. (comp. also Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 31) adopted it. Gloss on the margin for the explanation of the original ΣΥΝΉΛΑΣΕΝ … ΕἸς ΕἸΡΉΝΗΝ. On its reception into the text, the ΕἸς ΕἸΡ., separated from ΣΥΓΉΛ. by ΑὐΤΟΎς, was retained.

Acts 7:27. ἘΦʼ ἩΜᾶς] A B C H א, min. Theophyl. have ἘΦʼ ἩΜῶΝ. So Tisch. and Lachm. From LXX. Exodus 2:14.

Acts 7:30. ΧΥΡΊΟΥ] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A B C א, Copt Sahid. Vulg. A current addition to ἌΓΓΕΛΟς generally, and here specially occasioned by the LXX. Exodus 3:2.

Instead of ΦΛΟΓῚ ΠΥΡΌς, Tisch. has ΠΥΡῚ ΦΛΟΓΌς, after A C E, min. Syr. Vulg. The reading similarly varies in the LXX., and as the witnesses at our passage are divided, we cannot come to any decision.

Acts 7:31. ἘΘΑΎΜΑΖΕ] So Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. Born. But Elz. and Lachm. have ἘΘΑΎΜΑΣΕΝ. Both have considerable attestation. But the suitableness of the relative imperfect was, as often elsewhere, not duly apprehended.

After ΚΥΡΊΟΥ Elz. Scholz have ΠΡῸς ΑὐΤΌΝ, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted, following A B א, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. An exegetical amplification, instead of which D, after ΚΑΤΑΝ., continues by: Ὁ ΚΎΡ. ΕἿΠΕΝ ΑὐΤῷ ΛΈΓΩΝ.

Acts 7:32. Lachmann’s reading: Ὁ ΘΕῸς ἈΒΡΑΆΜ Κ. ʼΙΣΑΆΚ Κ. ʼΙΑΚΏΒ (so also Tisch.), has indeed considerable attestation, but it is an adaptation to Acts 3:13.

Acts 7:33. ἘΝ ᾯ] Lachm. Tisch. read ἘΦʼ ᾯ, which is to be preferred on account of preponderant attestation by A B C D** (D* has ΟὟ, so Born.) א; ἘΝ ᾯ is from the LXX.

Acts 7:34. ἈΠΟΣΤΕΛῶ] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἈΠΟΣΤΕΊΛΩ, which is so decidedly attested by A B C D, Chrys., and by the transcriber’s error ἈΠΟΣΤΊΛΩ in E and א, that it cannot be considered as an alteration after the LXX. Exodus 3:10. The Recepta is a mistaken emendation.

Acts 7:35. Instead of ἀπέστειλεν, ἀπέσταλκεν is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to decisive evidence.

ἐν χειρί] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read σὺν χειρί, which is so decidedly attested, and might so easily give place to the current ἐν χειρί, that it must be preferred.

Acts 7:36. γῆ] Lachm. reads τῇ, according to B C, min. Sahid. Cant. A transcriber’s error. The originality of γῇ is supported also by the Αἰγύπτου (instead of Αἰγύπτῳ) adopted by Elz. and Born. after D, which, however, has preponderating testimony against it.

Acts 7:37. After Θεός Elz. has ὑμῶν, against decisive testimony. χύριος and αὐτοῦ ἀχούσεσθε are also to be rejected (Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted both), as important authorities are against them, and as their insertion after the LXX. and Acts 3:22 is more natural than their omission.

Acts 7:39. ταῖς καρδ.] Lachm. reads ἐν ταῖς καρδ., according to A B C א. This is evidently an explanatory reading. On the other hand, τῇ καρδίᾳ (in H, min. and some VSS. Chrys. Oec. Theoph.), preferred by Rinck and Tisch., would unhesitatingly be declared genuine, were it not that almost all the uncials and VSS. support the plural.

Acts 7:43. ὑμῶν] is wanting in B D, min. VSS. Or. Ir. Philast Rightly erased by Lachm. and Tisch. From the LXX.

Ῥεφάν] a great variety in the orthography. Lachm. and Tisch. have Ῥεφάν, according to A C E. But Elz. Scholz have Ῥεμφάν; Born. Ῥεμφάμ (D, Vulg. Ir.); B has Ῥομφᾶ; א*, Ῥομφᾶν; א**, Ῥαιφᾶν.

Acts 7:44. The usual ἐν before τοῖς, which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted (after A B C D** H א, min. Chrys. and some VSS.), is an explanatory addition.

Acts 7:46. Θεῷ] B D H א*, Cant. have οἴχῳ. Adopted by Lachm. and Born. But in accordance with Acts 7:48 it appeared contradictory to the idea of Stephen, to designate the temple as the dwelling of God; and hence the alteration.

Acts 7:48. After χειροπ. Elz. has ναοῖς, against A B C D E א, min. and most VSS. An exegetical addition. Comp. Acts 17:24.

Acts 7:51. τῇ καρδιᾳ] Lachm. and Born. read χαρδίαις. But the plural, which is found partly with and partly without the article in A C D א, min. and several VSS. Chrys. Jer., was occasioned by the plural of the subject. B has καρδίας, which, without being a transcriber’s error (in opposition to Buttm. neutest Gr. p. 148 [E. T. 170]), may be either singular or plural, and therefore is of no weight for either reading.

Acts 7:52. γεγένησθε] The reading ʼγένεσθε in Lachm. Tisch. Born. is decidedly attested, and therefore to be adopted.

[189] How often σιτίον is exchanged in MSS. with σῖτος and σῖτον, may he seen in Frotscher, ad Hier. iii. 11; Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 64 D; Krüger, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 1. 33.

Ac 7:1-60.

DEFENSE AND MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN.

In this long defense Stephen takes a much wider range, and goes less directly into the point raised by his accusers, than we should have expected. His object seems to have been to show (1) that so far from disparaging, he deeply reverenced, and was intimately conversant with, the whole history of the ancient economy; and (2) that in resisting the erection of the Gospel kingdom they were but treading in their fathers' footsteps, the whole history of their nation being little else than one continued misapprehension of God's high designs towards fallen man and rebellion against them.

Then said the high priest - See the notes on Matthew 2:4. In this case the high priest seems to have presided in the council.

Are these things so? - To wit, the charge alleged against him of blasphemy against Moses and the temple, Acts 6:13-14.