Commentaires bibliques

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.

Acts 7:1. The high priest interrupts the silent gazing of the Sanhedrists on Stephen, as he stood with glorified countenance, and demands of him an explanation of the charge just brought against him.

Is then this (which the witnesses have just asserted) so? With εἰ (see on Acts 1:6; Luke 13:23) the question in the mouth of the high priest has something ensnaring about it. On the ἄρα, used with interrogative particles as referring to the circumstances of the case (here: of the discussion), see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 177; Nägelsb. on the Iliad, p. 11, ed. 3.

Acts 7:2-3. Brethren and respectively (καί) fathers. The former (kinsmen, אַחִים) refers to all present; the latter (comp. the Latin Patres and the Hebrew אָב in respectful address to kings, priests, prophets, and teachers; Lightfoot, ad Marc. p. 654), to the Sanhedrists exclusively. Comp. Acts 22:1.

ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης] God, who has the glory. And this δόξα (כָּבוֹד), as it stands in significant relation to ὤφθη, must be understood as outward majesty, the brightness in which Jehovah, as the only true God, visibly manifests Himself. Comp. Acts 7:55; Exodus 24:16; Isaiah 6:3; Psalm 24:7; Psalm 29:3; and on 1 Corinthians 2:8.

Haran, חָרָן, LXX. Χαῤῥάν, with the Greeks (Herodian. iv. 13. 7; Ptol. v. 18; Strab. xvi. 1, p. 747) and Romans (“miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit sanguine Carrhas,” Lucan. i. 104; comp. Dio Cass. xl. 25; Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 3) Κάῤῥαι and Carrhae, was a very ancient city in northern Mesopotamia. See Mannert, Geogr. V. 2, p. 280 ff.; Ritter, Erdk. XI. 291 ff. The theophany here meant is most distinctly indicated by Acts 7:3 as that narrated in Genesis 12:1. But this occurred when Abraham had already departed from Ur to Haran (Genesis 11:31); accordingly not: πρὶν ἢ κατοικῆσαι αὐτὸν ἐν Χαῤῥάν. This discrepancy[196] is not to be set at rest by the usual assumption that Stephen here follows a tradition probably derived from Genesis 15:7, comp. Nehemiah 9:7 (Philo, de Abr. II. pp. 11, 16, ed. Mang.; Joseph. Antt. i. 7. 1; see Krause, l.c. p. 11), that Abraham had already had a divine vision at Ur, to which Stephen refers, while in Genesis 12 there is recorded that which afterwards happened at Haran. For the verbal quotation, Acts 7:3, admits of no other historical reference than to Genesis 12:1. Stephen has thus, according to the text, erroneously (speaking off-hand in the hurry of the moment, how easily might he do so!) transferred the theophany that happened to Abraham at Haran to an earlier period, that of his abode in Ur, full of the thought that God even in the earliest times undertook the guidance of the people afterwards so refractory! This is simply to be admitted (Grotius: “Spiritus sanctus apostolos et evangelistas confirmavit in doctrina evangelica; in ceteris rebus, si Hieronymo credimus, ut hominibus, reliquit quae sunt hominum”), and not to be evaded by having recourse (see Luger after Beza, Calvin, and others) to an anticipation in Genesis 11:31, according to which the vision contained in Acts 12:1 is supposed to have preceded the departure from Ur; or, by what professes to be a more profound entering into the meaning, to the arbitrary assumption “that Abraham took an independent share in the transmigration of the children of Terah from Ur to Haran” (Baumgarten, p. 134), to which primordial hidden beginning of the call of Abraham the speaker goes back.

ἐν τῇ Μεσοποτ.] for the land of Ur (אוּר כַּשְׂדִּים, Genesis 11:28) was situated in northern Mesopotamia, which the Chaldeans inhabited; but is not to be identified with that Ur, which Ammianus Marc. xxv. 8 mentions as castellum Persicum, whose situation must be conceived as farther south than Haran. See, after Tuch and Knobel on Genesis, Arnold in Herzog’s Encykl. XVI. p. 735.

ΠΡῚΝ Ἤ] see on Matthew 1:18.

ἫΝ ἌΝ ΣΟΙ ΔΕΊΞΩ] quamcunque tibi monstravero. “Non norat Abram, quae terra foret,” Hebrews 11:8, Bengel.

[196] Ewald explains the many deviations in this speech from the ordinary Pentateuch, by the supposition that the speaker followed a later text-book, then much used in the schools of learning, which had contained such peculiarities. This is possible, but cannot be otherwise shown to be the case; nor can it be shown how the deviations came into the supposed text-book.

Acts 7:2-53. On the speech of Stephen, see Krause, Comm. in hist, et orat. Steph., Gott. 1786; Baur, de orat. hab. a Steph. consilio, Tub. 1829, and his Paulus, p. 42 ff.; Luger, üb. Zweck, Inhalt u. Eigenthümlichk. der Rede des Steph., Lübeck 1838; Lange in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 725 ff., and apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 84 ff.; Thiersch, de Stephani orat., Marb. 1849. Comp. his Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 85 ff.; Rauch in the Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 352 ff.; F.Nitzsch in the same, 1860, p. 479 ff.; Senn in the Evang. Zeitschr. f. Prot. u. Kirche, 1859, p. 311 ff.

This speech bears in its contents and tone the impress of its being original. For the long and somewhat prolix historical narrative, Acts 7:2-47, in which the rhetorical character remains so much in the background, and even the apologetic element is discernible throughout only indirectly, cannot—so peculiar and apparently even irrelevant to the situation is much of its contents[190]—be merely put into the mouth of Stephen, but must in its characteristic nature and course have come from his own mouth. If it were sketched after mere tradition or acquired information, or from a quite independent ideal point of view, then either the historical part would be placed in more direct relation to the points of the charge and brought into rhetorical relief, or the whole plan would shape itself otherwise in keeping with the question put in Acts 7:1; the striking power and boldness of speech, which only break forth in the smallest portion (Acts 7:48-53), would be more diffused over the whole, and the historical mistakes—which have nothing surprising in them in the case of a discourse delivered on the spur of the moment—would hardly occur.

But how is the authentic reproduction of the discourse, which must in the main be assumed, to be explained? Certainly not by supposing that the whole was, either in its main points (Krause, Heinrichs) or even verbally (Kuinoel), taken down in the place of meeting by some person unknown (Riehm, de fontib. Act. ap. p. 195 f., conjectures: by Saul). It is extremely arbitrary to carry back such shorthand-writing to the public life of those times. The most direct solution would no doubt be given, if we could assume notes of the speech made by the speaker himself, and preserved. But as this is not here to be thought of, in accordance with the whole spirit of the apostolic age and with Acts 6:12, it only remains as the most natural expedient: to consider the active memory of an ear-witness, or even several, vividly on the stretch, and quickened even by the purpose of placing it on record, as the authentic source; so that, immediately after the tragical termination of the judicial procedure, what was heard with the deepest sympathy and eagerness was noted down from fresh recollection, and afterwards the record was spread abroad by copies, and was in its substantial tenor adopted by Luke. The purely historical character of the contents, and the steady chronological course of the greater part of the speech, remove any improbability of its being with sufficient faithfulness taken up by the memory. As regards the person of the reporter, no definite conjectures are to be ventured on (Olshausen, e.g., refers to Acts 6:7; Luger and Baumgarten, to the intervention of Saul); and only this much is to be assumed as probable, that he was no hostile listener, but a Christian (perhaps a secret Christian in the Sanhedrim itself),—a view favoured by the diffusion, which we must assume, of the record, and more especially by the circumstance, that Acts 7:54-60 forms one whole with the reproduction of the speech interrupted at Acts 7:53, and has doubtless proceeded from the same authentic source. With this view even the historical errors in the speech do not conflict; with regard to which, however,—especially as they are based in part on traditions not found in the O. T.,—it must remain undetermined how far they are attributable to the speaker himself or to the reporter. At all events, these historical mistakes of the speech form a strong proof in what an unaltered form, with respect to its historical data, the speech has been preserved from the time of its issuing from the hands that first noted it down.

From this view it is likewise evident in what sense we are to understand its originality, namely, not as throughout a verbal reproduction, but as correct in substance, and verbal only so far, as—setting aside the literary share, not to be more precisely determined, which Luke himself had in putting it into its present shape—it was possible and natural for an intentional exertion of the memory to retain not only the style and tone of the discourse on the whole, but also in many particulars the verbal expression. Definitions of a more precise character cannot psychologically be given. According to Baur and Zeller the speech is a later composition, “at the foundation of which, historically considered, there is hardly more than an indefinite recollection of the general contents of what was said by Stephen, and perhaps even only of his principles and mode of thought;” the exact recollection of the speech and its preservation are inconceivable; the artificial plan, closely accordant with its theme, betrays a premeditated elaboration; the author of the Acts unfolds in it his own view of the relation of the Jews to Christianity; the discussion before the Sanhedrim itself is historically improbable, etc.; Stephen is “the Jerusalem type of the Apostle of the Gentiles.” See in opposition to Baur, Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 527 ff. Bruno Bauer has gone to the extreme of frivolous criticism: “The speech is fabricated, as is the whole framework of circumstances in which it occurs, and the fate of Stephen.”

[190] Comp. Calvin: “Stephani responsio prima specie absurda et inepta videri posset.”

Interpreters, moreover, are much divided in their views concerning the relation of the contents to the points of complaint contained in Acts 6:13-14. Among the older interpreters—the most of whom, such as Augustine, Beza, and Calvin, have recourse to merely incidental references, without any attempt to enter into and grasp the unity of the speech—the opinion of Grotius is to be noted: that Stephen wished indirectly, in a historical way, to show that the favour of God is not bound to any place, and that the Jews had no advantage over those who were not Jews, in order thereby to justify his prediction concerning the destruction of the temple and the call of the Gentiles.[191] But the very supposition, that the teaching of the call of the Gentiles was the one point of accusation against Stephen, is arbitrary; and the historical proofs adduced would have been very ill chosen by him, seeing that in his review of history it is always this very Jewish people that appears as distinguished by God. The error, so often committed, of inserting between the lines the main thoughts as indirectly indicated, vitiates the opinion of Heinrichs, who makes Stephen give a defence of his conversion to Christ as the true Messiah expected by the fathers; as well as the view of Kuinoel, that Stephen wished to prove that the Mosaic ceremonial institutions, although they were divine, yet did not make a man acceptable to God; that, on the contrary, without a moral conversion of the people, the destruction of the temple was to be expected. Olshausen stands in a closer and more direct relation to the matter, when he holds that Stephen narrates the history of the O. T. so much at length, just to show the Jews that he believed in it, and thus to induce them, through their love for the national history, to listen with calm attention. The nature of the history itself fitted it to form a mirror to his hearers, and particularly to bring home to their minds the circumstance that the Jewish people, in all stages of their development and of the divine revelation, had resisted the Spirit of God, and that, consequently, it was not astonishing that they should now show themselves once more disobedient. Yet Olshausen himself does not profess to look upon this reference of the speech as “with definite purpose aimed at.” In a more exact and thorough manner, Baur, whom Zeller in substance follows, has laid down as the leading thought: “Great and extraordinary as were the benefits which God from the beginning imparted to the people, equally ungrateful in return and antagonistic to the divine designs was from the first the disposition of that people.” Comp. already Bengel: “Vos autem semper mali fuistis,” etc. In this case, however, as Zeller thinks, there is brought into chief prominence the reference to the temple in respect to the charges raised, and that in such a way that the very building of the temple itself was meant to be presented as a proof of the perversity of the people,—a point of view which is foreign to Stephen, and arbitrarily forced on his words, as it would indeed in itself be unholy and impious (2 Samuel 7:13; 1 Kings 5:5; 1 Kings 6:12; 1 Chronicles 18:12); comp. on Acts 7:49-50. With reason, Luger (who yet goes too far in the references of details), Thiersch, Baumgarten, and F. Nitzsch have adhered to the historical standpoint given in Acts 6:13-14, and kept strictly in view the apologetic aim of the speech (comp. also de Wette); along with which, however, Thiersch and Baumgarten not without manifold caprice exaggerate, in the histories brought forward by Stephen, the typical reference and allegorical application of them (by which they were to serve as a mirror to the present) as designed by him,[192] as is also done in the Erlang. Zeitschr. 1859, p. 311 ff. Rauch is of opinion that the speech is directed against the meritoriousness of the temple-worship and of the works of the law, inasmuch as it lays stress, on the contrary, upon God’s free and unmerited grace and election (a similar view was already held by Calvin); but to this there remains the decisive counter-argument, that the assumed point (the non-meritorious nature of grace and election) is not at all expressly brought out by Stephen or subjected to more special discussion. Moreover, Rauch starts from the supposition that the assertion of the witnesses in Acts 6:14 was true (see, against this, on Acts 6:13), inasmuch as Stephen had actually said what was adduced at Acts 6:14.

But if the assertion in Acts 6:14 is not adduced otherwise than as really false testimony, then it is also certain that the speaker must have the design of exposing the groundlessness of the charges brought against him, and the true reason for which he was persecuted. And the latter was to the martyr the chief point, so that his defence throughout does not keep the apologetic line, but has an offensive character (comp. the appropriate remarks of F. Nitzsch), at first indirectly and calmly, and then directly and vehemently; the proof that the whole blame lay on the side of his judges, was to him the chief point even for his own justification. Accordingly, the proper theme is to be found in Acts 7:51-52, and the contents and course of the speech may be indicated somewhat as follows: I stand here accused and persecuted, not because I am a blasphemer of the law and of the temple, but in consequence of that spirit of resistance to God and His messengers, which YOU, according to the testimony of history, have received from your fathers and continue to exhibit. Thus, it is not my fault, but your fault. To carry out this view more in detail, Stephen (1) first of all lets history speak, and that with all the calmness and circumstantiality by which he might still have won the assembly to reflection.[193] He commences with the divine guidance of the common ancestor, and comes to the patriarchs; but even in their case that refractoriness was apparent through the envy toward Joseph, who yet was destined to be the deliverer of the family. But, at special length, in accordance with the aim of his defence, he is obliged to dwell upon Moses, in whose history, very specially and repeatedly, that ungodly resistance and rejection appeared (Acts 7:27 f., Acts 7:39 ff.), although he was the mediator of God for the deliverance of His people, the type of the Messiah, and the receiver of the living oracles of the law. Stephen then passes from the tabernacle to the temple prayed for by David and built by Solomon (Acts 7:44 ff.). But hardly has he in this case indicated the mode of regarding it at variance with the prophet Isaiah, which was fostered by the priests and the hierarchy (Acts 7:48-50), than (2) there now breaks forth a most direct attack, no longer to be restrained, upon his hostile judges (Acts 7:51 ff.), and that with a bold reproach, the thought of which had already sufficiently glanced out from the previous historical representation, and now receives merely its most unveiled expression.[194] This sudden outbreak, as with the zeal of an ancient prophet, makes the unrighteous judges angry; whereupon Stephen breaks off in the mid-current of his speech,[195] and is silent, while, gazing stedfastly heavenwards to the glory of God, he commits his cause to Him whom he sees standing at the right hand of God.

[191] Comp. Schneckenburger, p. 184, who considers the speech, as respects the chief object aimed at, as a preparation for Acts 28:25 ff.

[192] Thus, for example, according to Thiersch, even in the very command of God to Abraham to migrate, ver. 2 ff., there is assumed to be involved the application: “To us also, to whom God in Christ has appeared, there has been a command to go out from our kindred.” In ver. 7, Stephen, it is affirmed, wishes to indicate: So will the race of oppressors, before whom he stood, end like Pharaoh and his host, and the liberated church will then celebrate its new independent worship. In the envy of Joseph’s brethren, etc. (ver. 9 ff.), it is indicated that Christ also was from envy delivered up to the Gentiles, and for that God had destined Him to be a Saviour and King of the Gentiles. The famine (ver. 11) signifies the affliction and spiritual famine of the hostile Jews, who, however, would at length (ver. 13), after the conversion of the Gentiles, acknowledge Him whom they had rejected. Moses’ birth at the period of the severest oppression, points to the birth of Christ at the period of the census. Moses’ second appearance points to the (in the N. T. not elsewhere occurring) second appearance of Christ, which would have as its consequence the restoration of the Jews. Aaron is the type of the high priest in the judgment-hall, etc.—According to Luger, the speech has the three main thoughts; (1) That the law is not a thing rounded off in itself, but something added to the promise, and bearing even in itself a new promise; (2) That the temple is not exclusively the holy place, but only stands in the rank of holy places, by which a perfecting of the temple is prefigured; (3) That from the rejection of Jesus no argument can be derived against him (Stephen), as, indeed, the ambassadors of God in all stages of revelation had been reviled. These three main thoughts are not treated one after the other, but one within the other, on the thread of sacred history; hence the form of repetition very often occurs in the recital (vv. 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 18, 26, etc.).

[193] The more fully, and without confining himself to what was directly necessary for his aim, Stephen expatiates in his historical representation, the more might he, on account of the national love for the sacred history, and in accordance with O. T. examples (Exodus 20:5 ff.; Deuteronomy 23:2 ff.), expect the eager and concentrated interest of his hearers, and perhaps even hope for a calming and clearing of their judgment.

[194] We may not ask wherefore Stephen has not carried the history farther than to the time of Solomon. Vv. 51, 52 include in themselves the whole tragic summary of the later history.

[195] What Stephen would still have said or left unsaid, if he had spoken further, cannot be ascertained. But the speech is broken off; with ver. 53 he had just entered on a new stream of reproaches. And certainly he would still have added a prophetic threatening of punishment, as well as possibly, also, the summons to repentance.

Very different judgments have been formed concerning the value of the speech, according as its relation to its apologetic task has been recognised and appreciated. Even Erasmus (ad Acts 7:51) gave it as his opinion, that there were many things in it “quae non ita multum pertinere videantur ad id quod instituit.” He, in saying so, points to the interruption after Acts 7:53. Recently Schwanbeck, p. 251, has scornfully condemned it as “a compendium of Jewish history forced into adaptation to a rhetorical purpose, replete with the most trifling controversies which Jewish scholasticism ever invented.” Baur, on the other hand, has with justice acknowledged the aptness, strikingness, and profound pertinence of the discourse, as opposed to the hostile accusations,—a praise which, doubtless, is intended merely for the alleged later composer. Ewald correctly characterizes the speech as complete in its kind; and F. Nitzsch has thoroughly and clearly done justice to its merits. It is peculiarly important as the only detailed speech which has been preserved from one not an apostle, and in this respect also it is a “documentum Spiritus pretiosum,” Bengel.

As regards the language in which Stephen spoke, even if he were a Hellenist (which must be left undecided), this forms no reason why he should not, as a Jew, have spoken in Hebrew before the supreme council. Nor does the partial dependence on the LXX. justify us in inferring that the speech was delivered in Greek; it is sufficient to set down this phenomenon to the account of the Greek translation of what was spoken in Hebrew, whether the source from which Luke drew was still Hebrew or already Greek.

Acts 7:4. Τότε] after he had received this command.

μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ] Abraham was born to his father Terah when he was 70 years of age (Genesis 11:26); and the whole life of Terah amounted to 205 years (Genesis 11:32). Now, as Abraham was 75 years old when he went from Haran (Genesis 12:4; Joseph. Antt. i. 7. 1), it follows that Terah, after this departure of his son, lived 60 years. Once more, therefore, we encounter a deviation from the biblical narrative, which is found also in Philo, de migr. Abr. p. 415, and hence probably rests on a tradition, which arose for the credit of the filial piety of Abraham, who had not migrated before his father’s death. The circumstance that the death of Terah is narrated at Genesis 11:32 (proleptically, comp. Acts 12:4) before the migration, does not alter the state of matters historically, and cannot, with an inviolable belief in inspiration, at all justify the expedient of Baumgarten, p. 134.[197] The various attempts at reconciliation are to be rejected as arbitrarily forced: e.g. the proposal (Knatchbull, Cappellus, Bochart, Whiston) to insert at Genesis 11:32, instead of 205, according to the Samaritan text 145 (but even the latter is corrupted, as Genesis 11:32 was not understood proleptically, and therefore it was thought necessary to correct it);[198] or the ingenious refinement which, after Augustine, particularly Chladenius (de conciliat. Mosis et Steph. circa annos Abr., Viteb. 1710), Loescher, Wolf, Bengel, and several older interpreters have defended, that μετῴκισεν is to be understood, not of the transferring generally, but of the giving quiet and abiding possession, to which Abraham only attained after the death of his father. More recently (Michaelis, Krause, Kuinoel, Luger, Olshausen) it has been assumed that Stephen here follows the tradition (Lightf. in loc.; Michael. de chronol. Mos. post diluv. sec. 15) that Abraham left Canaan after the spiritual death of his father, i.e. after his falling away into idolatry (this, at least, was intended to protect the patriarch from the suspicion of having violated his filial duty!); which opinion Michaelis incorrectly ascribes also to Philo. According to this view, ἀποθανεῖν would have to be understood spiritually, which the context does not in the least degree warrant, and which no one would hit upon, if it were not considered a necessity that no deviation from Genesis l.c. should be admitted.

μετῴκισεν] namely, God. Rapid change of the subject; comp. on Acts 6:6.

εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς νῦν κατοικ.] i.e. into which ye having moved now dwell in it. A well-known brachylogy by combining the conception of motion with that of rest, Winer, p. 386 f. [E. T. 516 f.]; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. xi. 38, p. 132. The εἰς ἥν calls to mind the immigration of the nation (which is represented by ὑμεῖς) from Egypt.

[197] That the narrative of the death of Terah, Gen. l.c., would indicate that for the commencement of the new relation of God to men Abraham alone, and not in connection with his father, comes into account. Thus certainly all tallies.

[198] Naively enough, Knatchbull, p. 47, was of opinion that, if this alteration of the Hebrew text could not be admitted, it was better “cum Scaligero nodum hunc solvendum relinquere, dum Elias venerit.” According to Beelen in loc., Abraham need not have been the first-born of Terah, in spite of Genesis 11:26-27.

Acts 7:5. Κληρονομία, נַחֲלָה, hereditary possession. Hebrews 11:8.

βῆμα ποδός] LXX. Deuteronomy 2:5 (כַּף־רֶגֶל), spatium, quod planta pedis calcatur. Comp. on βῆμα in the sense of vestigium, Hom. H. Merc. 222, 345. On the subject-matter, comp. Hebrews 11:9.

καὶ ἐπηγγείλατο] Genesis 13:15. Καί is the copula. He gave not … and promised (the former he omitted, and the latter he did).

καὶ τᾷ σπέρμ. αὐτοῦ] καί is the simple and, not namely (see Gen. l.c.). The promise primarily concerned Abraham as the participant father of the race himself. Comp. Luke 1:71.

This verse, too, stands apparently at variance with Genesis, where, in chap. 23., we are informed that Abraham purchased a field from the sons of Heth. But only apparently. For the remark οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ … ποδός refers only to the first period of Abraham’s residence in Palestine before the institution of circumcision (Acts 7:8), while that purchase of a field falls much later. It was therefore quite superfluous, either (with Drusius, Schoettgen, Bengel) to emphasize the fact that Abraham had not in fact acquired that field by divine direction, but had purchased it, or (with Kuinoel and Olshausen) to have recourse to the erroneous assumption (not to be justified either by John 7:8 or by Mark 11:13) that οὐκ stands for οὔπω.

Acts 7:6-7. By the continuative δέ there is now brought in the express declaration of God, which was given on occasion of this promise to Abraham concerning the future providential guidance destined for his posterity. But God (at that time) spoke thus: “that his seed will dwell as strangers in a foreign land,” etc. The ὅτι does not depend on ἐλάλ., nor is it the recitative, but (see the LXX.) it is a constituent part of the very saying adduced.[199] This is Genesis 15:13, but with the second person (thy seed) converted into the third, and also otherwise deviating from the LXX.; in fact, καὶ λατρ. μοι ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τούτῳ is entirely wanting in the LXX. and Hebrew, and is an expansion suggested by Exodus 3:12.

ἔσται πάροικον] גֵּר יִהְיֶה. Comp. on Luke 24:18; Ephesians 2:19.

δουλώσουσιν αὐτό] namely, the ἀλλότριοι.

τετρακόσια] Here, as in an oracle, the duration is given, as also at Gen. l.c., in round numbers; but in Exodus 12:40 this period of Egyptian sojourning and bondage (ἜΤΗ ΤΕΤΡΑΚ. belongs to the whole ἜΣΤΑΙ … ΚΑΚΏΣΟΥΣΙΝ) is historically specified exactly as 430 years. In Galatians 3:17 (see in loc.), Paul has inappropriately referred the chronological statement of Exodus 12:40 to the space of time from the promise made to Abraham down to the giving of the law.

Acts 7:7. As in the LXX. and in the original Heb. the whole passage Acts 7:6-7 is expressed in direct address (ΤῸ ΣΠΈΡΜΑ ΣΟΥ), while Stephen in Acts 7:6 has adduced it in the indirect form; so he now, passing over to the direct expression, inserts the εἶπεν ὁ Θεός, which is not in the LXX. nor in the Heb.

And (after this 400 years’ bondage) the people … I shall judge; ΚΡΊΝΕΙΝ of judicial retribution, which, as frequently in the N. T., is seen from the context to be punitive.

ἘΓΏ] has the weight of the authority of divine absoluteness. Comp. Romans 12:19.

ἘΝ Τῷ ΤΌΠῼ ΤΟΎΤῼ] namely, where I now speak with thee (in Canaan). There is no reference to Horeb (Exodus 3:12 : ἘΝ Τῷ ὌΡΕΙ ΤΟΎΤῼ), as we have here only a freely altered echo of the promise made to Moses, which suggested itself to Stephen, in order to denote more definitely the promise made to Abraham. Arbitrary suggestions are made by Bengel and Baumgarten, who find an indication of the long distance of time and the intervening complications. Stephen, however, here makes no erroneous reference (de Wette), but only a free application, such as easily presented itself in an extempore speech.

[199] LXX.: γινώσκων γνώσῃ ὅτι πάροικον κ.τ.λ.

Acts 7:8. Διαθήκην περιτομῆς] a covenant completed by means of circumcision, Genesis 17:10. Comp. on Romans 4:11. Abraham was bound to the introduction of circumcision; and, on the other hand, God bound Himself to make him the father of many nations.

ἔδωκεν] inasmuch as God proposed and laid on Abraham the conclusion of the covenant.

οὕτως] so, i.e. standing in this new relation to God (comp. on Ephesians 5:33) as the bearer of the divine covenant of circumcision. Ishmael was born previously.

καὶ ὁ Ἰσαὰκ τ. Ἰακώβ] namely, ἐγέννησε κ. περιέτ. τ. ἡμ. τ. ὀγδ.

Acts 7:9-13. Ζηλώσαντες] here of envious jealousy, as often also in classical writers. Certainly Stephen in this mention has already in view the similar malicious disposition of his judges towards Jesus, so that in the ill-used Joseph, as afterwards also in the despised Moses (both of whom yet became deliverers of the people), he sees historical types of Christ.

ἀπέδοντο εἰς Αἴγ.] they gave him away (by sale, comp. Acts 5:8) to Egypt (comp. Genesis 45:4, LXX.). For analogous examples to ἀποδ. εἰς, see Elsner, p. 390.

The following clauses, rising higher and higher with simple solemnity, are linked on by καί.

χάριν κ. σοφίαν] It is simplest (comp. Genesis 39:21) to explain χάριν of the divine bestowal of grace, and to refer ἐναντίον Φαρ. merely to σοφίαν: He gave him grace (generally) and (in particular) wisdom before Pharaoh, namely, according to the history which is presumed to be well known, in the interpretation of dreams as well as for other counsel.

ἡγούμ.] “vice regis cuncta regentem,” Genesis 41:43, Grotius.

κ. ὁλ. τ. οἰκ. αὐτ.] as high steward.

χορτάσματα] fodder for their cattle. So throughout with Greek writers, and comp.LXX. Genesis 24:25; Genesis 24:32; Genesis 42:27; Jdg 19:19; Sir 33:29; Sir 38:29. A scarcity of fodder, to which especially belongs the want of cereal fodder, is the most urgent difficulty, in a failure of crops, for the possessors of large herds of cattle.

ὄντα σιτία] that there was corn. The question, Where? finds its answer from the context and the familiar history. The following εἰς Αἴγυπτον (see critical remarks) belongs to ἐξαπέστ., and is, from its epoch-making significance, emphatically placed first. On ἀκούειν, to learn, with the predicative participle, see Winer, p. 325 [E. T.436]; frequent also in Greek writers.

ἀνεγνωρίσθη] he was recognised by his brethren (Plat. Pol. p. 258 A, Pharm. p. 127 A, Lach. p.181 C), to be taken passively, as also Genesis 45:1, when the LXX. thus translates הִתְוַדַּע.

τὸ γένος τοῦ Ἰωσήφ] the name (instead of the simple αὐτοῦ, as A E, 40, Arm. Vulg. read) is significantly repeated (Bornem. ad Xen. Symp. 7. 34; Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 11); a certain sense of patriotic pride is implied in it.