Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 6:8 - 6:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
______
Act_6:9. Then there arose … disputing with Stephen.—Stephen attracted the attention, and, indeed, excited the envy and jealousy of the unbelieving Jews, not only by the wonders and miracles which he wrought, and which won distinction for him, but also by his gifts of knowledge and eloquence, which he employed in bearing witness to Christ. They became excited, addressed him personally, and engaged in discussions or debates ( óõæçôïῦíôåò ) with him. They were Hellenistic Jews, and had previously known Stephen, who was, very probably, a Hellenist himself. The language in this verse [ ἐê ôῆò óõíáöã .— Ëéâ . ê . Ê . ê . Ἀ . ê . ô ̣ ῶí ἀðὸ Ê . ê . Ἀóßáò ] is not free from ambiguity, and has hence given rise to many conflicting explanations. Some interpreters, as Calvin, Bengel, etc., suppose that only one synagogue is meant, to which all the groups here mentioned by name, belonged; but this interpretation can be suggested only when undue stress is laid on the expression ôῆò óõíáãùãῆò , the result of which certainly is, that only one synagogue appears to be mentioned. But the words êáὶ ôῶí ἀðὸ Êéë ., etc., obviously indicate that a well-known distinction existed. Accordingly, Winer (Bibl. Realwörtb. art. Libertiner) and Ewald suppose that two different synagogues are specified, the first, that of the Libertines, the Cyrenian, and Alexandrian Jews; the second, that of the Cilician and Asiatic Jews. Winer, however, [who remarks on this case again, in Gram. N. T., last ed. § 19. 5. note 1.—Tr.], states elsewhere (Realw. art. Cyrene), that the Cyrenians had a synagogue of their own [in Jerusalem].—That interpretation appears to claim the preference with most reason, which enumerates five synagogues [repeating, with de Wette, Hackett, etc., ôéíὲò before each of the succeeding four genitives.—Tr.]. It is well-known, from statements made in the Talmud, that Jerusalem contained a very large number of synagogues, amounting, according to the Rabbinic writers, to 480. The Talmud specially mentions the synagogue of the Jews who came from Alexandria, in which city about 100,000 Jews resided at that period. It is very probable that the Jews of Cyrene in Upper Libya, where they constituted a fourth part of the population, also had a synagogue of their own in the holy city. When Pompey overran Judea, he carried a vast number of Jews to Rome, as prisoners of war, about B. C. 63; when they were liberated and had returned to Judea, they and their sons [designated libertini, that is, freedmen , without doubt, assembled in their own separate synagogue; the terms employed in the text establish the correctness of this view with great distinctness. (We omit other explanations of the name, as they are all merely conjectural). It is quite as probable that both those Jews who came from Cilicia, a province of Asia Minor, and also those whose original home had been in Asia, that is, the eastern coast of the Ægean Sea [ch. Act_2:9], in each case, maintained a separate synagogue. The opponents of Stephen, accordingly, belonged to the congregations of five different synagogues, but now collect in two companies, according to the terms of this verse, the first consisting of Jews from Rome and Africa, the second of those who came from Asia Minor. It is probable that Saul was one of the latter, and belonged to the Cilician synagogue. [ch. Act_21:39].
Act_6:10. And they were not able to resist, etc.—The sense is, not that they owned that they had failed to sustain their positions, and, that they submitted to the truth, for their subsequent conduct revealed an increased degree of animosity; the meaning is, that they could adduce no arguments possessing any force, in opposition to the wisdom and the Spirit wherewith he spake.[ ðíåῦìá , the “Holy Spirit, if not as a person, as an influence.” (J. A. Alex.); “the Spirit.” (Hack.)—Tr.]. The word óïößá assuredly does not here mean mere Jewish learning [Heinrichs; Kuin.]—learning and wisdom are far from being identical—but denotes that true wisdom which is from above [Jam_3:17], and that fulness of the Spirit, which, according to Act_6:5, was in Stephen.
Act_6:11. Then they suborned men.—These Hellenistic men of the synagogue, controlled by a fanatical spirit, resorted to cunning in order to effect the ruin of the man, whose doctrines and principles they could not confute. In order to avoid the charge of being influenced by a revengeful spirit, they no longer continued the contest personally in public, but put forward ( ὑðÝâáëïí ) other men; they instigated these agents to circulate as widely as possible the charge, that Stephen had uttered blasphemies against Moses, and even against God Himself, and that they had themselves heard him speak those words. Stephen’s enemies intended to influence public opinion to his disadvantage by these rumors, and also to furnish the magistrates of the people of Israel with an opportunity to institute legal proceedings against him. Both objects were attained. The people and the members of the Sanhedrin were alike aroused ( óõíåêßíçóáí ); and this was the first occasion on which the population of the capital city united with the party that was opposed to the Christians. The fact constituted an epoch in the history of the latter.
Act_6:12. Came upon him, and caught him.—The proceedings against Stephen were not commenced by the leaders of the Sanhedrin themselves, as in the case of Jesus, but rather originated in a popular tumult. The individuals, however, who had previously disputed with him, and then, by means of their agents, circulated such charges as would naturally inflame the public mind, now engaged personally in the affair. They came to Stephen unexpectedly, possibly at a moment when he was traversing the street on one of his errands of mercy, violently seized his person, and brought him to the Sanhedrin [ óõíÝäñéïí ], of which a special meeting was hastily called.
Act_6:13. And set up false witnesses.—These witnesses, who were perhaps hired for the occasion, had previously received definite instructions from the party opposed to Stephen. Were they, strictly speaking, øåõäåῖò , lying witnesses? Baur and Zeller, who reply in the negative, accuse the narrator of uttering an untruth, in so far as he applies the term øåõäåῖò to the witnesses, since, as they allege, Stephen had really entertained the opinions, and spoken the words with which he is charged in Act_6:13-14. But the opinion of these critics can certainly derive no support whatever from any remarks occurring in the discourse recorded in the next, chapter. It is, besides, inconceivable per se, that at this early period, a devout Israelitish Christian like Stephen, an honored and trusted member of the primitive congregation, which adhered so faithfully to the temple and the law, could have been impelled by any motive to assail the temple and the law with such violence as this opinion would require us to assume (comp. Baumg. Apg. I. 122, ff.). It is, further, essential that we should compare Act_6:13 with Act_6:14, and carefully observe the material difference which exists between their respective contents. The former contains simply a general charge; the latter supports the charge by presenting evidence respecting certain concrete expressions of the accused party. Stephen is accused in Act_6:13, of perpetually ( ïὐ ðáýåôáé ) assailing the temple and the law, that is, of considering it to be his chief employment to argue, in an insulting and blasphemous manner, against the fundamental principles of the Mosaic institutions. (Although âëÜóöçìá after ῥÞìáôá is, in this case, a spurious term, the phrase ῥÞìáôá ëáëåῖí êáôὰ here denotes, as the context and the usus loq. show (comp. Luk_12:10), that slanderous or blasphemous words are meant). Now this charge is evidently intended to represent Stephen as a man whose sentiments and conduct are all controlled by an active, enduring, irreverent and fanatical hostility to all that is holy and divine in the eyes of every devout Israelite. But no one, not even Baur or Zeller, believes that such was the character of Stephen. And yet those accusers wished to produce that impression. They are, therefore, false witnesses; they are so termed, not because they may have reported any words actually uttered by Stephen, with the malicious design to destroy him (Heinr.), but because, in addition to a positively hostile feeling or a malicious motive, they really pronounced a øåῦäïò . For the evidence which the accusers deliver in Act_6:14, in order to substantiate the charge in Act_6:13, and which they represent as derived from their personal knowledge ( ἀêçêüáìåí — ëåãïíôïò ), does not prove the point to which it refers. We will here lay no stress on the circumstance that this language of Stephen, (which was no doubt employed by him in the course of his debate with the men of the synagogue), was, perhaps, not heard by the witnesses personally, but communicated to them by others, and that, in such a case, they would already deserve the title of false witnesses. But their statement in Act_6:14, (even if we admit that Stephen had used precisely these terms), in the first place, only shows that Stephen had, on a single occasion, but not perseveringly and perpetually, employed offensive expressions; in the second place, it by no means shows that he had indulged in language which insulted and blasphemed that which was divine, as Act_6:11 and Act_6:13 would lead us to expect. The charge may not have been entirely fictitious, but have been suggested by certain terms employed by Stephen; still, it was false, for the words actually chosen by him, were not presented in their proper connection, but were distorted and repeated with exaggerations. [“This charge was no doubt true so far as it related to the doctrine, that the new religion, or rather the new form of the church was to supersede the old. Its falsity consisted in the representation of the two as hostile or antagonistic systems, and of the change as one to be effected by coercion or brute force.” (J. A. Alexander, ad loc.—Tr.].—It is obvious that the terms ὁ Íáæùñáῖïò ïὖôïò (which betray a bitter and contemptuous spirit,) are not derived from Stephen himself, but are combined by the false witnesses with his words; and, indeed, they do not quote his own words, but report his remarks in sermone obliquo.
Act_6:15. Saw his face … an angel.—We can easily imagine that the eyes of all who were present, were fixed on the Christian who was accused of such serious offences. But while they gazed, they could discover neither fear nor anxiety depicted on his countenance, even when the devices of his enemies seemed to be successful. His countenance was, on the contrary, lighted up as with an angelic radiance, revealing not only the courage of a man, a divine inspiration, and holy serenity of the soul, but also the brightness of a preternatural light [like that of Moses, Exo_34:29 (J. A. Alex.)]. The language of Luke certainly implies far more than that the countenance of Stephen indicated the utmost tranquillity, insomuch that the spectators involuntarily looked on him with reverence (Kuinoel); it obviously describes an objective, and, indeed, an extraordinary phenomenon. If he had been previously endowed with the Spirit, he now received, in this decisive moment, the anointing of the Spirit of God in a still richer measure. That this divine influence on the soul of the devout witness should have manifested itself externally, and irradiated his countenance with a heavenly light that was visible even to his enemies, cannot surprise us, when we reflect that the spiritual and corporeal here act in unison, and especially, that in the most solemn moments of life, even as at the end of all human history, “corporealness is the end of the ways of God.”
2. Stephen was only one of the Seven, not one of the Twelve; he was simply invested with an administrative office, afterwards called the Diaconate, and not with the Apostolate. Still, he received the gift to work wonders and miracles, which had hitherto been confined to the apostles, and was enabled to speak with such wisdom that he contended with the enemies of the faith as successfully as the apostles. Indeed, the gifts which the Lord bestowed upon him, the relentless hostility to which he was exposed, and the martyrdom which closed his career, combine to place him in such a prominent position, that the apostles themselves temporarily recede from the view. And yet the latter are not moved by envy, even in the faintest degree. They were not so completely controlled by lofty conceptions of the dignity of their own office, as to apprehend that it would be imperilled by this circumstance. The Lord himself, and his honor, were of far greater importance in their eyes, than their own office. And when the Redeemer appointed them to be his witnesses, he did not impose any obligation on himself by which he resigned his sovereign authority to impart gifts to others, to breathe his Spirit on others, or to employ additional instruments at his pleasure.
3. The Redeemer had promised his servants that if they should be assailed for his name’s sake, he would give them such wisdom of speech, and such power in vindicating their course, that their enemies would be unable to resist their words with success; Luk_21:15. He fulfilled this promise with such faithfulness in the case of Stephen, that the opponents of the latter withdrew from the spiritual conflict; they could not resist his wisdom which was from above, and the Spirit by which he spake, and now resolved to ruin him by rousing the passions of men against him through distorted statements of his words and through falsehoods.
Act_6:9. Then there arose certain of the synagogue .… disputing with Stephen.—The most zealous controversialists and most skilful disputants, who select religious truth as their topic, usually have the least religion and faith of all. (Starke).—Men may acquire the learning of the schools, and yet not be “taught of God.” “There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Act_6:10. And they were not able to resist.—“The disciple is not above his master.” Even as the scribes tempted Christ with insidious questions devised by human wisdom, so, too, they approach Stephen with similar weapons. Furnished with all the material which the learning of their schools supplied, they attempt to annihilate Jesus Christ, the hope and the glory of Stephen’s heart. But this unpretending herald of the cross, entertains no fear, for the weapons of his warfare are not carnal; it is the Spirit of God that speaketh in him. They cannot prevail in a contest with Him! (Leonh. and Sp.).
Act_6:11. Then they suborned men.—An evil enterprise will always find abettors. (Starke).—Divine truths may easily be perverted; it is not difficult to alter slightly the words of the witnesses of the truth, and then accuse them of blasphemy. (K. H. Rieger).
Act_6:12. And they stirred up the people.—This is the first occasion on which we find the people willing to combine with the elders and scribes in hostile movements against the church of Jesus. The apostles in Jerusalem now reach the same turning-point, from which, at an earlier day, the way led to the place where Jesus was crucified. The people had once been very attentive to hear him. [Luk_19:48], but afterwards they cried: “Crucify him!” (Besser).
Act_6:15. His face as it had been the face of an angel.—A joyful heart, which is assured of the grace of God, imparts its brightness to the face. (Starke).—The flight of the eagles of God is boldest, when the storm rages most furiously; his stars shine most brilliantly in the darkest nights. (W. Hofacker).—God often sends angels to his church; few there are who have eyes to see them; but there are many whose hands are ready to stone them. (Starke).—The composure and the cheerful spirit of Stephen were generally noticed; they demonstrated that God manifested his glory in his servants, especially when they suffer, and that “the Spirit of glory” [1Pe_4:14] rests upon them. We see, moreover, the brightness of his face reflected in the discourse which he delivered; he ascends, like an angel, above all that is human or earthly, speaking and acting with a holy zeal for the honor of God and for the truth, and with a deep concern for the salvation of men.—The glory of the countenance of Moses, and the angelic appearance of the face of Stephen—illustrative of the language in 2Co_3:6-8 : if the office which slays through the letter, was glorious, how shall not the office which imparts the Spirit be yet more glorious?—The angelic brightness revealed in Stephen’s face: I. It was the light reflected from the face of Jesus Christ, who says to his servants; “In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world” [Joh_16:33]; II. It was the radiance of his inward assurance of faith, which exclaimed: “If God be for us, who can be against us?” [Rom_8:31]; III. It was the effulgence of that future glory with which “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared” [Rom_8:18].—The serenity that appears on the countenance of a believer who has fallen asleep in the Lord: I. It is the departing light of an earthly existence that closes in peace in God; II. It is the dawning light of eternity approaching with the effulgence of heaven.
ON THE WHOLE SECTION.
Stephen, a man full of faith and power: I. In his successful labors; Act_6:8; II. In his severe trials; Act_6:9-14; III. In the heavenly light which shone upon him; Act_6:15.
[Act_6:1. Dissensions in the church: I. The mode in which they originate; (a) the different light in which doctrines, measures, or men, are viewed; (b) personal offence given or taken, in connection with the expression of opinion; (c) the aid of other individuals invoked, and opposite parties formed; II. Their influence; (a) on the individual (his spiritual life, etc.); (b) on the church (character, growth, divine blessing); (c) on the world (false and dangerous views respecting religion); III. The remedy (example of the apostles and the members); (a) Christian humility; (b) Christian love (manifested in words and acts); (c) Christian faith (relying rather on the divine care of the church than on any specific human counsels.) —Tr.]
Footnotes:
Act_6:8.— ÷Üñéôïò is unquestionably to be preferred to ðßóôåùò [in H; ÷áñ . ê . ðé . in E.], which was taken from Act_6:5, and is supported by only a few authorities of inferior importance. [Alf., with the later critics, entertains the same view, reading ÷Üñ . with A. B. D. Cod. Sin. Vulg. fathers, etc.—Tr.]
Act_6:9.—Lachmann cancels ê . Ἀóßáò , in accordance with A. [D. (corrected)], but the reading is sufficiently attested by the authorities [including Cod. Sin.] in order to be retained; no internal evidence against it exists. [Retained by Tisch. and Alf., with whom Meyer and de Wette concur.—Tr.]
Act_6:13. a. âëÜóöçìá [of text. rec.] after ῥÞìáôá is evidently a gloss derived from Act_6:11, and is omitted by the most important MSS. [Found in E. H.; omitted in A. B. C. D. Cod. Sin. Vulg., and cancelled by Alf., Lach., Tisch.—Tr.]
Act_6:13. b.— ôïýôïõ after ἁãßïõ is found, it is true, in B (e sil). C., but is probably a later addition, and therefore spurious. [Omitted by A. D. E. H. Cod. Sin. Vulg., and cancelled by Alf., Lach., Tisch.—Tr.]
Act_6:14.—[The margin of the Engl. vers. offers rites for customs; the latter is preferable. Robinson (Lex.) furnishes, under ἔèïò only the three words: “custom, usage, manner.” Wahl’s definitions are: (1) mos, consuetudo; (2) institutum, ritus, and here he cites the present passage. J. A. Alexander (Com. ad loc.) prefers “institutions.”—Tr.]
[“Leiblichkeit ist das Ende der Wege Gottes.” This saying of the celebrated F. C. Oetinger of Wuertemberg (died Febr. 10, 1782), which is frequently quoted, is explained by Auberlen (the author of the work entitled “Die Theosophie Oetinger’s,” 1847), in a biographical sketch in Herzog: Real-Encyk. X. 566 ff. We have only room for the prominent thoughts on which it was founded.
Life is an “essential or simplified” combination of powers, an intensum, externally a monas, internally a myrias, and is manifested corporeally. Corporealness, (or, “to be corporeal”) is a reality or perfection, that is, when it is released from the defects adhering to mere terrestrial corporealness, viz., impenetrability, resistance, and gross mixture; this release will be hereafter exemplified in the bodies of risen believers.—Christ restored the true life by his death and resurrection, and now his corpus est perfectio spiritus; he will, too, restore all things to their proper (spiritual) corporealness, so that God will dwell in the creature in his glory, and be all in all. In this sense, “corporealness is the end of the ways of God.”
Oetinger, (who refers to passages like 1Co_15:44, “spiritual body”, Rom_8:21-23; John, Acts 6., etc.,) regarded the resurrection of the body as the completion of the regeneration (the ðáëéããåíåóßá of Mat_19:28, on which passage see the analogous remarks of Olshausen), or as being, in connection with the new heaven and earth of the kingdom of glory, the final purpose of the revelations and acts of God. There will not only be a blessed world of spirits, at the consummation of all things, but also a glorified corporealness.—In the case of Stephen, the author, alluding to Oetinger’s theory, doubtless intends to imply that an anticipatory glorification of human nature, proceeding from the soul, or incipient influences of the Holy Spirit on the body, already occurred.—Tr.]