Lange Commentary - Acts 7:30 - 7:34

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Acts 7:30 - 7:34


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

B.—the calling of moses

Act_7:30-34

30And when forty years were expired [fulfilled], there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina [Sinai] an angel of the Lord [om. of the L.] in a flame of fire in [of] a bush. 31[But] When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as [but as] he drew near to behold it, the [a] voice of the Lord came unto him [om. unto him], 32Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob [of Abr., and of Is. and of Jacob]. Then [But] Mosestrembled, and durst [ventured] not [to] behold. 33Then said the Lord [But the Lord said] to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest isholy ground. 34I have seen, I have seen [34. I have indeed seen] the affliction [ill treatment] of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning [sighing], and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will [om. will] send thee into [to] Egypt.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act_7:30. a. And when forty years were expired.—See the Exeg. note on Act_7:24 above.—The wilderness of Mount Sina [Sinai], that is, the Desert of Arabia, or the Sinaitic peninsula, is designated by Stephen as the region in which the call was given to Moses. It is not here expressly stated, but rather assumed as a well-known fact, that the angel appeared in the immediate vicinity of mount Horeb [Exo_3:1]; it was, at least, that event which gave the name of the mount, Sinai, to the wilderness itself. That name alone occurs in the New Testament, while, in the Old Testament it is used interchangeably with that of Horeb, with the following qualification:—when the narrative refers to the circumstances connected with the giving of the law, and to the sojourning of the Israelites near that mount, the latter receives, with a, single exception [Exo_33:6], the name of Sinai alone; but previously to the arrival of the people at that spot, and after their departure from it, the mountain receives the name of Horeb exclusively. This circumstance has led Robinson (Bibl. Res. I. 120. ed. 1856) to infer very justly that Horeb was the general name of the whole group of mountains, and that Sinai was the name applied to that particular mount on which the law was given.

b. An angel.—If the correct reading be ἄããåëïò without êõñßïõ , (and such appears to be the case), the specific conception connected with îַìְàַêְ éְäåָֹä is, unquestionably, no longer suggested by it. Besides, that conception would not be unmistakably expressed even in the reading: ἄããåëïò êõñßïõ , since, as in the Sept., the word angel is not preceded by the article in Exo_3:2. [The question to which the author alludes, is the following: ‘Was this “angel of Jehovah,” (also called the angel of the covenant) a visible manifestation of God himself, and, specially, of the Logos, as a foreshadowing of his future incarnation, or was this angel a created being, one of the heavenly hosts?’ The former view is that of many church fathers, and the earlier Protestant theologians. It has, in recent times, been adopted by Hengstenberg, Delitzsch (formerly), Nitzsch, Keil, Hævernick, Ebrard, J. P. Lange, Stier, Auberlen, Thomasius, and Kurtz, (formerly). Alford, in a note on this passage, unequivocally adheres to it. The latter view was held by Augustine, Jerome, and, at a later period, by the Socinians, Arminians and Rationalists. But it has also been advocated by Hofmann (Weiss. u. Erf.), Baumgarten, Tholuck (Com. on John , 5 th ed.), Delitzsch (more recently), Kurtz (in the second ed. of Hist. of the Old Cov. § 50) and, apparently, by the author, as the tone of the remarks just made here, and also below (Doctr. and Eth. No. 1.) seems to indicate.—Tr.].—The reading: ðõïὶ öë . â . represents the flaming fire of the bush as the most striking feature of the scene, while the other reading, öëïãὶ ðõñ . â . directs attention rather to the fiery flame; they do not, however, essentially differ in sense. The bush which flames without being consumed by the fire, and in which the angel of Jehovah is present, is the place in which God is revealed. The flaming fire, which did not consume the bush, was not natural fire, but a supernatural light, corresponding to the äüîá of God when He manifests Himself.

Act_7:31-33. a. Moses .… wondered.—Stephen does not, in a slavish manner, merely recite the terms employed in the Mosaic narrative, but repeats the substance of the latter with freedom and animation. Thus when he introduces the word ἐèáýìáæåí , the imperfect tense (which is the better reading), conveys the following thought, [Winer: Gram. § 40. 3]:—When Moses first beheld that appearance, he gazed with wonder for a time, before he determined to approach nearer, in order to observe ( êáôáíïῆóáé ) the whole more accurately.

b. The voice of the Lord came unto him.—The word spoken by the angel, as the messenger of God, not in his own name, but in that of God, was, in truth, the word of God, and his voice was the voice of God. Here, again, Stephen departs from the text of the Old Testament: according to the latter, the command that Moses should put off his sandals because the place was holy, Exo_3:5, preceded God’s manifestation of himself as the God of the patriarchs, Act_7:6. Moses was directed to unloose and put away his sandals, that is, the soles which were fastened with thongs above the feet. The reason may be found in the oriental custom, according to which no visitor was permitted to enter a temple or other holy place, without having previously removed the covering of the feet. The act was both a mark of profound reverence, and also obviated the danger of introducing dust or any other impurity into the sanctuary by means of the sandals. According to rabbinic traditions, the priests performed their duties in the temple of Jerusalem only after having removed the covering of the feet.

Act_7:34. I have seen, I have seen.—The words ἰäὼí åἶäïí , both here and in the Septuagint, furnish an illustration of the mode of Grecizing the Hebrew verb with the infinitive absolute; and it may be added, that an analogous form of expression can be found in classic Greek writers [comp. Winer: Gram. N. T. §45. 8]. The emphasis which is expressed by the participial repetition of the verb, here denotes a seeing or a looking on, which is both long continued, and also produces sympathy and causes grief.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The theological, mooted point, involved in the proposition: “The Angel of Jehovah, who repeatedly appears in the Old Test., and, at times, speaks in the name of God himself, is identical with the eternal Son of God, who appeared, previously to his incarnation, in the form of an angel,” is not sustained by the language of Stephen; he speaks merely of an angel, whereas “the angel of Jehovah” is mentioned in Exo_3:2. [See note 1, appended to the text.—Tr.]

2. The fear and trembling of Moses (Act_7:32), as soon as he became conscious that God himself was present and was distinctly manifested, were perfectly natural results in the case of a man whose heart was not perverted and callous. It is, besides, a significant fact that this revelation of God occurred in the immediate vicinity of the same mountain which was, soon afterwards, chosen as the scene of the giving of the law. We are not authorized by the narrative, it is true, to infer that it was the divine purpose to convey to Moses, at this early period, a conception of the solemn and impressive scenes which would attend the giving of the law. Still, his first impressions of the exalted majesty, holiness, and äüîá of God, must have been combined with alarm and fear. His fears were succeeded by a feeling of encouragement. The divine words, Act_7:34, were reviving and cheering, for they expressed love ( ôïῦ ëáïῦ ìïõ ), pity, and saving grace.

3. The place where Moses stood was holy ground, simply for the reason that God was there present and revealed himself. The spot itself possessed no sanctity of its own as distinguished from any other; it became holy ground solely for the reason that it was the sovereign will of God to reveal himself there rather than elsewhere. The whole purpose of the discourse of Stephen required him to insist on this point. This principle is, indeed, in strict accordance with the entire Mosaic legislation, according to the tenor of which, as far as the locality of a divine revelation is concerned, all is made by God himself to depend on his own choice of the place where he will “record his name,” Exo_21:24.

Footnotes:

Act_7:30. a. External evidence of a decisive character cannot be produced either for the reading ἄããåëïò , or for ἄããåëïò êõñßïõ ; the former is supported by A. B. C., the latter by D. E. H.; the ancient versions [Vulg. angelus] also vary considerably. The point must, consequently, be decided by internal evidence. Now, if êõñßïõ were the original reading, it would scarcely have been omitted; it could far more easily have been subsequently added, particularly as the original Hebrew in Exo_3:2 is îַìְàַêְ éְäåָֹä , and the Sept. also reads ἄãã . êõñßïõ . Hence Lach. and Tisch. [and Alf.] have very properly cancelled [Cod. Sin. omits êõñ . after ἅãã .—Tr.]

Act_7:30. b. Tischendorf reads ðõñὶ öëïãüò [with A. C. E.] instead of öëïãὶ ðõñüò [of text. rec., which is adopted by Lach. and Alf. with B (e sil). D. H. and also Cod. Sin.]; both readings are likewise furnished by the MSS. of the Sept. in Exo_3:2, with nearly the same weight of authority for each reading. [The current printed text of the Sept., in accordance with B. reads ðõñὶ öë .; but A. and ed. Ald. (1518), and Complut. Pol. (1517 ff.) exhibit öë . ðõñ . (Landschreiber’s Add. to Stier and Th.’s Pol. Bib.)—Tr.]. öë . ð . is the easier reading, and, therefore, liable to suspicion.

Act_7:31. a. Ἐèáýìáæåí in D. E. H. [and Cod. Sin.] and many small mss. is preferable to the aorist ἐèáýìáóåí [of text. rec.] which is found in A. B. (e sil). C. The imperfect is quite appropriate in this connection [and is adopted by Tisch. and Alf. while Lach. prefers the aorist.—Tr.]

Act_7:31. b. It is true that in a number of MSS. [C. Vulg., etc.] êõñßïõ is followed by ðñὸò áὐôüí ; but as these two words are wanting in A. B. [Syr.] and several Oriental manuscripts, they must be regarded as a gloss. [The words ðñὸò áὐôüí are omitted in Cod. Sin.—Tr.]

Act_7:32. The fuller reading: ὁ Èåὸò Ἀâñ . êáὶ ὁ Èåὸò Ἰó . ê . ὁ È . Ἰáê . in D. E. H. [and Vulg.] is more elaborate than ὁ Èåὸò Ἀâñ . êáὶ Ἰó . ê . Ἰáê ., found in A. B. C. [and Cod. Sin.] and preferred by Lach. and Tisch. [and Alf.; but Meyer considers it a later adaptation to Act_3:13 above.—Tr.]

Act_7:33. Ἐö ̓ ᾦ is far more strongly supported [by A. B. C. Cod. Sin.] than ἐí ᾦ , which is found only in E. H., and appears to have been borrowed from the text of the Sept.: the former has, accordingly, been preferred by Lach., Tisch., and Meyer [and Alf.].

Act_7:34. The future, ἀðïóôåëῶ , of the text. rec. is supported by only one important MSS., namely, H., while A. B. C. D. have the present, ἀðïóôÝëëù , and E. also, which reads ἀðïóôßëëù (where the å was omitted only by a lapsus pennæ), advocates the present tense, which the latest critics have unanimously adopted. [Alf. retains the apparently undisputed reading of the Sept. in Exo_3:10, i.e. ἀðïóôåßëù , the subjunctive aorist (de Wette; see Winer: Gr. N. T. § 41. 4). Both Tisch. (ed. 1849) and Lach. adopt the same reading, (aor. subj. and not pres. or fut. indic.), referring to A. B. C. D. E., as the authorities.—Cod. Sin. exhibits the form ἀðïóôßëù , which also represents ἀðïóôåßëù .—Tr.]

______

For Hom. and Pract. see on (Act_7:35-43)