Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 7:17 - 7:29
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
§
Act_7:17-43
_____________
A.—Israel in Egypt; early history of Moses
Act_7:17-29
Act_7:18. Till another king arose; these words are quoted from Exo_1:18; çָãָùׁ is here rendered ἕôåñïò , which, as contradistinguished from ἄëëïò , designates that which is of another kind, and refers to a new dynasty. The words ïὐê ᾕäåé ôὸí ἸùóÞö , like the original Hebrew, mean, not that the king did not wish to know Joseph, or, that he showed no regard for Joseph and for the great services rendered to Egypt by him, but, literally, that he was totally unacquainted with his history. When we consider that a period of four centuries had since passed by, and that a new dynasty, which probably came from another part of the country, had been introduced, this actual want of information may be easily comprehended.
Act_7:19. The same dealt subtilely.— Êáôáóïößóáóèáé is the version in the Sept. Exo_1:10, of äִúְçַëֵּí .—Meyer considers the phrase: ôïῦ ðïéåῖí ἔêèåôá ôὰ âñÝöç , as distinctly involving the construction of the infinitive of the purpose, so that the sense would be: he oppressed them, in order that by such a course he might compel them to expose their children. This is an erroneous interpretation; it is not absolutely demanded by the laws of grammar, and does not accord with the context. For this êáêïῦí , that is, the imposition of heavy burdens, or the harsh treatment, was not, and could not be intended, to result in the exposure of the children. The infinitive with ôïῦ , which, originally, expressed a purpose, was employed, (when the Greek language began to decline), by the Hellenists especially, as well as in the Septuagint and the New Testament (Paul and Luke), with increasing frequency, and then the indication of the purpose was often changed into that of the mere result (see Winer’s Grammar) [N. T. § 44. 4, p. 292 of the 6th Germ, ed., where the same interpretation of this passage is found.—“ Ἔêèåôïí ðïéåῖí , i. q., ἐêôéèÝíáé , to expose infants, Act_7:19.” Robinson: Lex. ðïéÝù 1 f.—Tr.]. Hence the language before us simply means: he ill-treated them, so that, among other things, he caused their new-born children to be exposed. The fact to which allusion is here made, is stated in Exo_1:22 : Pharaoh gave a general command to the Egyptians to cast the new-born sons of the Israelites, into the Nile. The Septuagint employs in Exo_1:17 the verb æùïãïíåῖí , as the version of çִéָּä [Piel], to preserve alive, to let live [Robinson’s Gesenius: Hebr. Lex. ad verb. 2, 2], and it occurs in that sense here.
Act_7:20. Exceeding fair [see version above.]—It is simply said of the mother of Moses in Exo_2:2 : åַúֵּøֶà àֹúåֹ ëִּéÎèåֹá äåּà . Stephen’s description is: ἀóôåῖïò ôῷ Èåῷ , that is, fair before God, or, according to God’s judgment, so that God himself deemed him to be such; the expression is, by no means, intended to be a mere substitute for the superlative. [So, too, Winer: Gram. N. T., § 36. 3. “The phrase is intensive, rather than an equivalent for the superlative: comp. Jon_3:3.” See also ib. § 31. 4.—“Fair unto God, God being judge, i.e., intens. exceedingly fair.” Robins. Lex. ad verb.—Tr.]. It may be added that this expression is very moderate, when compared with the traditionary accounts of the beauty of Moses in his childhood: Philo speaks of it [ ὄøéí ἐíÝöῃíåí ἀóôåéïôÝñáí ἣ êáô ʼ ἰäéþôçí , de vit. Mos. I. ִ :604. (de Wette).—Tr.], and Josephus (Antiq. ii. 9, 6) furnishes still fuller details. He relates that Moses was [as his protectress, Thermuthis said] in form like the gods ( ðáῖäá ìïñöῇ èåῶí ), and adds that when he was carried out into the street, the spectators neglected their own affairs, and gazed on the child with wonder and admiration, etc.
Act_7:21. Pharaoh’s daughter took him up.— Ἀíåßëáôï is equivalent, not to tollere infantem (de Wette), in which sense it never occurs, but simply to åַúִּ÷ָּçֶäָ in Exo_2:5, that is, took him up. The conception that she adopted him as a son, is suggested only by the succeeding words: ἑáõôῇ åἰò õἱüí , although even these, in the literal import, simply inform us that she brought him up for herself (not for his own parents), i.e., that he should be her son.’ [The Sept. reads, Exo_2:5 : ἀíåßëáôï áὐôÞí . “ ÁíåéñÝù .— ìָ÷ַç , capio, accipio. Exo_2:5.—tollebat illam, sc. arcam ( ôὴí èéâçí ).” Schleusner: Lex. in LXX.—Tr.]
Act_7:22. And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.—No mention is made of this circumstance either in the Pentateuch, or elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is not, however, in any degree, improbable that Moses, who had gained a maternal patroness in the king’s daughter, should have readily found an avenue to all that intellectual culture which was known and valued in Egypt, and which, as other historical records testify, was connected chiefly with mathematics, natural philosophy, and medicine. Philo’s statement (De vita Mos.) is of quite a different character; he relates that Moses was educated not only by Egyptian, but also by Greek, Assyrian, and Chaldean teachers.—The terms: äõíáôὸò ἐí ëüãïéò êáὶ ἔñãïéò áὖôïῦ , forcibly remind us of the language in Luk_24:19, where it is remarked of Jesus that he was äõíáôὸò ἐí ἔñãῳ êáὶ ëüãῳ . These ἔñãá of Moses can, in no case, have been miracles, (none of which are said in the Scriptures to have been wrought by him during this earlier period of his life), but only designate the vigor and the energy of character which his general deportment revealed. The expression äõíáôὸò ἐí ëüãïéò , by no means contradicts, on the other hand, the language which Moses employs, in Exo_4:10, in reference to himself, as some writers have supposed. He there remarks that he was not àִéùׁ ãְּáָøִéí , but rather áְáַãÎ ôֶּä åּëְáַã ìָùׁåֹï . These words do not mean, as the Septuagint and the Targum of Jonathan interpret them, that Moses was a stammerer, but only that he was not skilful and fluent in discourse. And, indeed, it often occurs that men who possess great strength of character and much intellectual vigor, are deficient in facility of expression, and, nevertheless, exercise vast influence ( äõíáôὸò ἐí ëüãïéò ).
Act_7:23-24. And when he was full forty years old.—Stephen directs the attention of his hearers, in this verse and in Act_7:30; Act_7:36, to the circumstance that the whole lifetime of Moses embraced three periods, each consisting of forty years. Although this symmetrical computation may he generally adopted, it is by no means positively established by any statements found in the Pentateuch. The records there mention only two numbers: one hundred and twenty, as the whole age of Moses, Deu_34:7, and forty years, as the period during which he accompanied the people of Israel in the wilderness; the latter number is stated both incidentally, that is, refers more to the people, Exo_16:35; Num_14:33-34; and Num_33:38, and also occurs with a direct reference to Moses; he was, namely, eighty years old when he presented himself before Pharaoh, Exo_7:7. But no precise statement is elsewhere found, either of the length of the time spent by him in his native country before his flight, or of that of the period of his residence in the wilderness, before he was called at Horeb, Exo_3:1. The exact determination of these periods, and the equable distribution of the years of Moses (“Mosis vita ter XL. anni.” Bengel), are derived solely from tradition; it is in this instance that the earliest appearance of such a tradition, in a fully developed form, is noticed, although subsequently quite current among the Rabbins.—The phrase: ἀíÝâç åὶò ôὴí êáñäßáí , used impersonally, is unequivocally Hebraistic; òָìָä ַòìÎìֵá ; it proceeds from the conception of a higher and a lower region in the psychical life of man. A thought may repose in the depths of the soul—it is latent; it ascends, manifests itself, and enters into the region of distinct and conscious life, uniting with man’s sentiments and impulses; it is then fully adopted by his consciousness, and impels him to independent, personal action.—The fact is stated in quite a plain and objective manner, in Exo_2:11, that Moses went out to his brethren, and looked on their burdens. Stephen, on the other hand, describes the incident subjectively, that is, in such a manner as to give prominence to the sympathy and love from which his resolution proceeded: “It came into his heart to visit his brethren.”
Act_7:25. For he supposed his brethren would have understood.—This is an observation made by the speaker on the causes and connection of the incidents, and is not found in the original Hebrew narrative. Stephen views the acts of Moses, Who defended a single Israelite, and slew a single Egyptian, as involving in itself an intimation and a promise respecting the deliverance of the whole people from Egyptian bondage, which God designed to effect through Moses. This design the people should have perceived; but they did not understand it. Stephen, however, seems to imply (when he says ïὐ óõíῆêáí ), not so much that the people were deficient in intelligence or understanding, as that they, rather, had not the will—that their faith in God was weak ( ὁ Èåïò — äéä . óùô .)—and that they were not inspired by confidence and hope. [“Stephen makes the remark evidently for the purpose of reminding the Jews of their own similar blindness in regard to the mission of Christ; comp. Act_7:35.” (Hackett.)—Tr.]
Act_7:26-29. And the next day he shewed himself unto them.—Here, too, Stephen describes historical events with the life and vigor which are peculiar to him. The very term ὤöèç is striking; it almost seems to imply that a theophany had occurred. It is, no doubt, intended to convey the thought that Moses had appeared to his own people as a messenger of God, not merely as Bengel supposes, ultro, ex improviso, but actually as one who came from a higher world with a divine commission.—The terms: óõíÞëáóåí áὐôïὺò åἰò åἰñÞíçí , describe the energetic importunity, the vis lenitatis, as Bengel says, of Moses in his efforts to maintain harmony and peace among his countrymen. [Literally, “he drove them together into peace” (J. A. Alex.).—Tr.]. The propriety of substituting óõíÞëëáóóåí , cannot be established, nor is óõíÞëáóåí itself correctly interpreted, when taken in the sense: he attempted to restore peace. Moses, on his part, drove the contending parties together, unto peace; the fact is stated only afterwards, in Act_7:27-28, that one of them resisted, and thrust the mediator from himself.—The terms in which Moses addresses them, are also rendered with considerable freedom. He says, in brief and direct words, in Exo_2:13 : ìָîָּä úַëֶּä øֵòֶêָ ; but in Stephen’s narrative, Moses appeals alike to both parties, reminding them, above all, that they are brethren, and should deal with each other in a fraternal spirit.
Act_7:29. And was a stranger.—The Arabian geographers of the middle ages mention a city of the name of Madian, which lay east of the Elanitic Gulf; the land of Madian appears to have been a tract of country which extended from the northern shore of the Arabian Gulf and Arabia Felix to the region of Moab. But the Midianites with whom Jethro was connected, were, perhaps, a nomad detachment of the people, which wandered in the Arabian Desert. See Winer: Realm, [art. Midianiter.]
2. Even as the Israelite to whom Moses appealed, retorted: “Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?”, so, too, the Sanhedrists asked Jesus: “Who gave thee this authority?” Mat_21:23, comp. Luk_20:2. The divine authorization is doubted, when visible and tangible human credentials are not presented. The truth is, that men unconsciously conceive of God as if he were controlled in his acts by human forms and limitations, and they deny his absolute authority and sovereign power ( ὁ Èåὸò ôῆò äüîçò , Act_7:2).
Footnotes:
Act_7:17. The manuscripts A. B. C. [and Cod Sin.] read ὡìïëüãçóåí , and also the Vulgate: confessus erat, which Lachmann and Tischendorf [and Alford] adopt; the reading ἐðçããåßëáôï is supported by only a single one of the more important MSS.; and ὤìïóåí [of text. rec.] in D. E. is, without doubt, a later correction. [Tisch. says that ἐðçãã . is found in D. E., and ὤìïóåí in H., and Alf. repeats this statement; Lechler appears to have transposed these two readings in the present note.—Tr.]
Act_7:18. The reading ἐð ̓ Áἴãõðôïí after ἕôåñïò , is found, it is true, in A. B. C., and some minuscule mss. [and in Cod. Sin. Syr. Vulg., etc.]; it is however more probable that it was inserted as an explanation, than that it should, by an oversight, have been omitted in D. E. H. [Inserted by Lach., but omitted in text. rec. and by Tisch. and Alt., as an addition from the Sept. Exo_1:8; with the latter, Meyer and de Wette concur.—Tr.]
Act_7:20. [The marg. of the Engl. ver. furnishes fair to God as a more literal translation than exceeding fair. See the note below.—Tr.]
Act_7:21. The reading adopted by Lachm. ἐêôåèÝíôïí äὲ áὐôïῦ from A. B. C. D. [and Cod. Sin.] was probably introduced by a later hand, [as also Meyer and de Wette think], for the reason that áὐôüí after ἀíåßëáôï did not seem to suit the preceding accusative ἐêôåè . ä . áὐôüí . [The acc. of text. rec., as in E. H., is adopted by Alf.; Tisch., as in note 8 below, varies in different editions from himself.—Tr.]
Act_7:22. a.—The reading best supported by the authorities is: ἐí ðÜóῃ óïößᾳ , A. C. E. [Cod. Sin.], whereas the omission of the preposition [as in text. rec.] is supported only by D. and H.; [Lach. follows the latter]; the genitive ðÜóçò óïößáò in B, is totally inadmissible, on grammatical grounds, and the accusative ð . ô . óïößáí is found only in a single MSS. [D.—Tisch. and Alf. read ἐí ð . óïöéᾴ .—Tr.]
Act_7:22. b.—The reading ëüãïéò êáὶ ἔñãïéò áὐôïῦ , i.e., without ἐí ἔñã ., and with áὐôïῦ added, is fully sustained. [The text. rec. inserts ἐí before ἔñã . from E. and some versions; the prep. is omitted in A. B. C. D. H. The text. rec. also omits áὐôïῦ with H., while the pronoun is found in A. B. C. D. E. The later editors unite in the reading ἐí ë . ê . ἔñ . áὐ ., which is also that of Cod. Sin.—Tr.]
Act_7:25.—[The margin offers Now in place of For; the original is the common äὲ . Hackett and Owen prefer For.—Tr.]
Act_7:26.— óõíÞëáóåí [of text. rec. ( óõíåëáýíù )] is obviously a more difficult reading than óõíÞëëáóóåí ; it is true that the latter is sustained by B. C. D. [and Cod. Sin.]; but the former is undoubtedly the original reading, and is testified to be such by A. E. H. [The latter in Vulg. reconciliabat, and adopted by Lachm.] Tischendorf [who had previously preferred the latter] has recently adopted óõíÞëáóåí [and in this decision Alford, Meyer, and de Wette concur with him.—Tr.]
Act_7:27.—The genitive ἐö ̓ ἡìῶí is sustained by a greater number of authorities [A. B. C., etc.] than the acc. ἐö ̓ ἡìᾶò [D. E., etc. Alford regards the gen. as a correction from the Sept. Exo_2:14, and adopts the acc. of text. rec., while Lach. and Tisch. prefer the gen.—The reading of Cod. Sin. is ἐö ̓ ἡìáò .—Tr.]
See on (Act_7:35-43.)
______