Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 7:44 - 7:53
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Act_7:44-53
b. As he had appointed who spake [marg.] unto Moses.—The sanctity of the tabernacle is here demonstrated by the fact that God gave explicit directions to Moses respecting the manner in which it should be made, namely, “after the pattern which was shewed” to Moses on Mount Sinai, Exo_25:9; Exo_25:40. Thus, the sacred tabernacle, together with its “instruments,” was made with hands, or, was a human work, it is true; but at the same time, it was a sanctuary prepared by God’s express command, and made in accordance with a divine ideal and primordial type. On this point Philo (Life of Moses, III. Op. ed. Mangey, II. 146) expresses himself as follows: As to the construction Moses had been thus instructed: ôῶí ìåëëüíôùí ἀðïôåëåῖóèáé óùìÜôùí ἀóùìÜôïõò ἰäÝáò ôῇ øõ÷ῇ èåùñῶí , ðñὸò ἃò ἔäåé , êáèÜðåñ ἀð ʼ ἀñ÷åôýðïõ ãñáöῆò êáὶ íïçôῶí ðáñáäåéãìÜôùí áἰóèçôὰ ìéìÞìáôá ἀðåéêïíéóèῆíáé . [The following translation is given in the edition of 1613, Lib. III. Acts 515: Placuit igitur tabernaculum erigi, cujus apparatum ex oraculis in monte Moses didicerat, futuri ædificii contemplatus ideas incorporeas, ad quarum exemplar intelligibile oportebat designari sensibiles imagines.”—Tr.]
Act_7:45. Which also our fathers, having received it [marginal rendering], brought in, etc.—The sacred tent continued to be the sanctuary, not merely in the wilderness, but also in the land of Canaan, until the age of David and Solomon. The words ïἱ ðáôÝñåò ἡìῶí , refer, as the connection shows, to another generation of the fathers, namely, the contemporaries of Joshua, who came with him into the country and occupied it. [Jesus, here, as in Heb_4:8, is the Septuagint form of Joshua, and retained in the Engl. version.—Tr.]. Still, the words ìåôὰ Ἰçóïῦ do not so belong to ïἱ ðáô . ἡìῶí , as if they were intended to define the age of the latter with precision, as, in that case they would necessarily be preceded by the article [i.e. ïἱ ìåôὰ ]; they belong, strictly speaking, to the verb åἰòÞãáãïí . ÄéáäåîÜìåíïé is not equivalent to successores, neither is it substituted for the adverb afterwards [postea, deinceps (Wolf.)], but conveys the thought that this generation had obtained possession of the tabernacle, as a sacred and precious inheritance received from the fathers. The words ἐí êáôáó÷Ýóåé ôῶí ἐèí ., in so far lack precision as they term, when literally understood, the act of taking possession of the territory which belonged to the conquered and expelled nations [ ἐèíῶí ], the act of taking possession of the nations themselves. The specification of the time: ἕùò ôῶí ἡìåñῶí ÄáõÀä , does not belong to, ἔîùóåí , as Kuinoel and Baumgarten assert, but to ἐéòÞãáãïí . According to the former construction, the sense would be, that the work of expelling the Canaanitish nations had continued until the days of David: But the expulsion of those nations is treated as a subordinate point in the present passage, which refers mainly to the sanctuary and its history. If the words are, on the other hand, connected with åἰòÞãáãïí , they imply that the tabernacle had been brought with Joshua into the country, and had continued to be the sole sanctuary of Israel from that period to the age of David.
Act_7:46-47. Who—desired … of Jacob.—It is an arbitrary procedure, as far as the principles of lexicography are concerned, and also unnecessary, to assert (Kuinoel) that ᾐôÞóáôï is to be taken in the sense of desiderabat [instead of the more accurate version: asked for himself (J. A. Alex.; Hack.).—Tr.]. For, even if a petition of such a nature, addressed by David in prayer to God, is not found in the sacred narrative, analogous sentiments do occur in Psalms 132 (or Psalms 131, according to the Septuagint). The first five verses doubtless occurred to the mind of Stephen at the moment, e. g. Act_7:5 : ἕùò ïὖ åὔñù ôüðïí ôῷ éïõñßῳ , óêÞíùìá ôῷ èåῷ Ἰáêþâ . The word óêÞíùìá , as contradistinguished from óêçíÞ , designates a fixed and permanent dwelling-place, and here refers, as the connection shows, to a dwelling-place that is worthy of the God of Jacob, i.e. to an appropriate sanctuary. This urgent petition of David, which, in Psalms 132 is expressed in the form of a vow, Was not granted by God to the king. [Comp. 2 Sam. Acts 7]. Stephen does not here distinctly state this fact, but assumes that it is well-known to his hearers. It is also worthy of observation that the thought or wish respecting the building of a temple, and the subsequent completion of the building, are alike represented, in Act_7:46 and Act_7:47, as a thought of man and a work of man, and that neither was the result of a divine appointment and command, or of divine directions concerning the details, as in the case of the tabernacle, Act_7:44.
Act_7:48-50. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not, etc.—The train of thought is the following:—Although Solomon was successful in substituting for the portable tent a well-built house, a magnificent temple, as the sanctuary, still the temple can never be regarded as the truly appropriate and exclusive dwelling-place of God, to which his presence and the manifestation of himself are restricted. The particle of negation ïὐê after ἀëëÜ , is placed emphatically at the head of the sentence, as a protest against the delusive and superstitious opinions of the Jews respecting the dignity of the temple. The terms ̔ ï ὕøéóôïò and ÷åéñïðïßçôá present a contrast. The former, corresponding to the conception expressed by ὁ èåὸò ôῆò äüîçò , sets forth the infinite glory and grandeur of God; the latter (which the Septuagint has even employed in the place of the word sanctuary, i.e. that of Moab, in Isa_16:12, and elsewhere applies to idols), is purposely used here without the word íáïῖò . It thus contrasts the general conception of a human work with that of the Creator himself, and classes the Jewish delusion respecting the temple with the superstition that is connected with idols. The prophetic words to which Stephen appeals, Isa_66:1-2, are quoted by him from the Septuagint with unimportant verbal variations. They express the following thought:—The whole creation, vast as it is, is the dwelling-place of God, and therefore no house built by men can be his exclusive abode, or contain him. As He is himself the Creator of all things, he cannot need the aid of man in preparing the place of his rest. When Stephen repeats this prophetic passage, he indirectly furnishes a divine declaration which sanctions any change of the temple-worship that might be effected through Jesus and the Gospel. He contends against the delusion that the temple was, in an absolute sense, the necessary and only place in which God could be acceptably worshipped. [Comp. also Solomon’s words, 1Ki_8:27; 2Ch_6:1-2; 2Ch_6:18, and Paul’s, Act_17:24.]. But he does not, as Baur and Zeller conjecture, intend to speak disparagingly of the temple itself, or of the worship offered in it. Not a trace of such a purpose can be found in his words, neither does the tenor or general plan of his discourse authorize the supposition that he was influenced by such a motive.
Act_7:51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised, etc.—The speaker very suddenly changed the tone in which he had hitherto addressed his hearers. He had sketched the ancient history of the people, but now speaks of his contemporaries. He had spoken of earlier manifestations and interpositions of God, but now directs attention to the Person of Christ. He had referred to former generations of Israel, but now dwells with a searching glance on his own times. He had hitherto spoken in an unimpassioned style, but now addresses his hearers with irrepressible indignation and a flaming zeal. His historical statements had mainly served as means, for vindicating himself, in view of the charges advanced by his enemies, and had only indirectly referred to the errors of his contemporaries. But his language now assumes an aggressive character, and, with all the fervor of a prophet, he accuses his hearers of grievous sins which they had committed. The transition is sudden, but by no means unnatural, for even while the speaker repeated the history of former generations, his glance was fixed on his own age. There is, consequently, no reason for imagining that any external cause, any interruption on the part of the audience, such as angry outcries or threatening gestures, induced Stephen to adopt this severe style of address (Kuinoel; Olshausen).—The humiliating accusation is frequently repeated in the Old Testament, that the Israelites were stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears [e. g., Exo_32:9; Exo_33:3; Lev_26:41; Deu_10:16; Eze_44:7, that is, “rebellious, like a stubborn ox.” (J. A. Alex.).—“Circumcision, viewed as a purificatory rite (Sept. ðåñéêáèáñéåῖ = îָì , Deu_30:6), and as a consecration, is figuratively ascribed to the heart and the ear.” (de Wette). “The sense is: They are men whose mind and understanding are as rude as those of pagans”. (Meyer).—Tr.].—It is here Stephen’s main purpose to rebuke the deep-rooted unwillingness of the Jews to be governed by the Spirit of God, and to submit to his will. Hence he produces the positive charge (which is designedly expressed with great emphasis in the phrase: ἀíôéðßðôåéí ôῷ ðí . ô . ἁ .) that they violently resisted the guidance of the Spirit of God. The reproach is, at the same time, so expressed, as to apply to the entire people of Israel, in all their successive generations: ὡò ïἱ ðáôÝñåò ὑìῶí êáß ὑìåῖò , and, ὑìåῖò ἀåὶ — ἀíôéðßðôåôå .
Act_7:52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?—The proof of the charge: ἀåὶ ô . ðí . ô . ἁ . áíôéðßðôåôå , is given. Their fathers persecuted and slew the prophets who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, yea, persecuted them all without exception ( ôßíá — ïὐê ἐä .). Their ancestors had persecuted and slain those men who foretold that the Messiah would come, ὁ äéßêáéïò , He who would be the only and the perfectly Righteous One, and who would “justify many.” Isa_53:11. All that the fathers had done to the prophets—Stephen continues—the men of this generation have done to Him who was promised by the prophets. Of Him ye have become the betrayers and murderers.—They became ðñïäüôáé (corresponding to ἐäßùîáí ), by accusing Him, and delivering Him into the power of Pilate—and öïíåῖò (corresponding to ἀðÝêôåéíáí ) by crucifying Him.
Act_7:53. [Ye] who have received the law, åἰò äéáôáãὰò ἀããÝëùí , i.e., that it might be revered and obeyed, as consisting of regulations made by angels (legem eo habendam loco, quo habendæ essent constitutiones angelorum; Bengel). Meyer’s objection to this interpretation (namely, that it cannot be correct, since Israel received the law as containing commandments, not of angels, but of God) confounds Stephen’s words with those that are employed in Exod. Acts 2. [Act_7:1; Act_7:19; Act_7:22, where the angels are not mentioned]. The interpretation: legem ab angelis promulgatam, arbitrarily disowns the proper signification of åἰò , and confounds it with ἐí [See Winer: Gram. N. T., § 32. 4, ult.; § 49. a. ult.; § 50. 4. b.—Tr.]. It is certainly true that the original Hebrew does not speak of the coöperation of the angels at the giving of the law; but their presence and operations on that occasion are mentioned in rabbinic traditions, of which a trace may already be discovered in the Septuagint, Deu_33:2 [the words: “from his right hand went a fiery law for them”, being there rendered: ἐê äåîéῶí áὐôïῦ ἄããåëïé ìåô ̓ áὐôïῦ .—In Jos. Ant. xv. 5. 3, Herod says: “We have learned our—doctrines and—laws from God äἰ ἀããÝëùí .” “The key to the right rendering seems to be the similar expression in Gal_3:19— äéáôáãåὶò —announced by angels; åἰò äéáô . ἀã ., at the injunction of angels.” (Alford). Robinson, in Lex. ad verb. translates: “according to (by) the arrangements of angels.” See also Heb_2:2.—Tr.].—The relative ïἵôéíåò always generalizes, by extending that which applies to one subject to many others of the same kind, or by evolving a general conception from a particular subject. Thus, in the case before us, the present generation of the people of God is combined by Stephen with all that preceded it, and all are placed in the same category by him—all are found to be alike disobedient to the law which they had received from God. This prominent feature in the character of the nation, is both the original cause, and also furnishes an explanation, of the conduct observed by the Israelites towards Jesus and his followers.
General Remarks [referred to in Exeg. note on Act_7:2-3. a.—Tr.].—a. The main design of the discourse.—Interpreters have, at all times, differed widely in their statements of the general tenor of this discourse, as well as of its relation to the offences with which Stephen was charged, and to the course of history in general. Erasmus has, no doubt, expressed the real sentiments of many interpreters, when he says: Multa inesse, quæ non ita multum pertinere videantur ad id, quod instituit. But Bengel is fully justified when he replies: Quamquam non ponit enuntiationes enuntiationibus adversariorum directe contradicentes, tamen ad omnia nervose respondet. There is, at all events, no reason to suppose, as Kuinoel does, that Stephen had not yet reached his main argument when he was interrupted by the tumultuous cries of his hearers, and that he was hastily executed before he had completed his discourse. Dr. Baur suggested subsequently (De orat. hab. a Steph. cons., 1829) that the following was the theme of the discourse:—The more gloriously God manifested his grace to Israel, even from the beginning, the more perverse and ungrateful was the conduct of the people. This proposition is strictly true, but it applies only to the Mosaic age, Act_7:17 ff.; whereas not one word occurs in the part which refers to the patriarchial period, Act_7:2-16, with the sole exception of Act_7:9, which could suggest such a thought. Hence Luger (Zweck, etc., d. Rede. d. Steph., 1838), and Baumgarten (I. 131 ff.; 142), have endeavored to find the leading thought of the discourse elsewhere. The former supposes it to be the subordination of the law to the promise; the latter finds it in the progressive character of divine revelation under the old covenant. However, Stephen does not assign such a prominent position to either of these thoughts, as to authorize us to suppose that he had chosen it as the theme of his discourse. But there is a view presented by him which reveals his main design in speaking. In striking contrast with the dark shadow of man’s unbelief and disobedience to the Spirit of God, and to the men whom he sent,—a deep shadow that falls on Israel,—Stephen presents to our view the brightness of the äüîá of God, Act_7:2. He dwells on the unlimited glory and the absolute independence of God, by virtue of which he revealed himself from the beginning, at any time or place, in any form or order, according to his own pleasure, not being restricted either to the temple as the exclusive place of his presence, or to the land of Canaan, as the only region suited for his revelations. It surely cannot be regarded as a merely accidental circumstance, that Mesopotamia (Act_7:2), Egypt (Act_7:9-10; Act_7:22; Act_7:34; Act_7:36), the desert of Arabia (Act_7:30 ff., Act_7:36; Act_7:38), together with the promised land itself (ver 4 ff., 45), are mentioned as the regions in which God had spoken with the fathers, and revealed himself in his miracles. It is, accordingly, the main design of Stephen’s discourse to combine both a vindication of himself, and also a sharp rebuke of his hearers with explanatory statements of the history of the people of Israel. The past is the mirror in which he views the present; it exhibits distinctly as well the glory and absolute sovereignty and liberty of God in revealing himself, as also the insensibility and perverseness of Israel, both in earlier ages and also at the present time. The latter thought is expressed at the close, Act_7:51 ff., in the form of a direct and emphatic reproach.
b. The historical genuineness of the discourse. It is only very recently that the entire discourse has been represented as supposititious, and written, irrespectively of historical facts, at a later period, (Baur, Zeller, and B. Bauer). The argument which has been adduced in support of this opinion, (namely, that the skill with which the materials are selected and arranged, betrays that it is an elaborate production of the pen), is by no means adapted to sustain it. The peculiar character of the discourse, on the contrary, (which has given rise to a very great diversity of opinions respecting its leading theme and real purpose,) is precisely an argument in favor of its genuineness. For, if it were spurious, and had been composed with only a general reference to the circumstances, it would, without doubt, have replied with far more fulness and directness to the charges brought against Stephen, than it does in its present form. It has also been represented as altogether inconceivable that such a discourse should have been preserved, and handed down to a succeeding age with entire accuracy and precision. To this objection it may be replied: (1) Such a discourse could be the more easily retained in the memory, precisely on account of the historical matter which it presents, and the chronological order which it observes.—(2) No circumstance could have operated more powerfully than the martyrdom of Stephen, which immediately followed the delivery of the discourse, in inducing the Christians of his day to remember his last words with deep feeling, to repeat them with devout and grateful sentiments, and, indeed, to commit them to writing at an early period, for the sake of preserving his dying testimony. It was in this spirit that, at a later period, the narratives concerning other martyrs were carefully written. It cannot be a source of embarrassment to us, that we do not know the name of the writer who first of all recorded the discourse. It is obvious that he was a Christian, and not an enemy; it is not, in itself, an improbable circumstance, that some Christians may have been present as hearers at the meeting of the Sanhedrin, when the discourse was delivered. Still, even if Saul was also present at the time, as we have every reason to believe, the conjecture that he, rather than any other person, should have committed the discourse to writing (Baumgarten, I. 129), is not supported by a single consideration that is of weight.
2. The unity which is observable in the history of revelation, is admirably illustrated in the discourse of Stephen, with respect both to God and to man. God had formerly given promises; he now fulfils them. He had formerly sent his servants, the prophets, whose principal duty was no other than that of announcing the Messiah who was to come (Act_7:52, comp. with Act_7:37). The Just One, who was promised, has now come. But men resist the Spirit of God, and the counsel of his grace; the fathers persecuted, and even slew those men of God, the prophets; and, finally, their children and descendants betrayed and murdered that Just One. They received, but did not obey the law and the word of God ( ëüãéá æῶíôá ). To them the offer of grace in Jesus is made; but they reject alike that offer and the kingdom of God. If the fathers did not keep the law in its spirit, their descendants imitate their example with respect to the Gospel and the grace that came by Jesus Christ.
Act_7:45. Whom God drave out.—All uncleanness must be removed from the heart which is to become the abode of God, even as the Canaanites were expelled when Israel entered in; 2Ti_2:21. (Starke).—Be of good cheer, ye evangelical heralds! Carry forth the witness of the word of Jesus into heathen lands with confidence. God will there drive out heathenism before your face, and raise up Christians! (id.).
Act_7:46-47. David desired … Solomon built.—David was a type of Christ, who, in his humiliation, “prepared abundantly,” by the store of his merits, for the building of his church; (1Ch_22:5.). Solomon was a type of Christ in his state of exaltation, building up his church with materials that were purchased with his blood; Eph_2:21. (Quesn.).—The temple of Christ is built in the heart of him alone who loves peace [Solomon, i.e. pacific.]. (Starke).
Act_7:48. The Most High dwelleth not in temples.—What materials does the Lord employ in building his church? I. Not gold and silver (earthly power and splendor); II. Not wood and stone (the religion of mere decorum, an external, mechanical service); III. Not paper and parchment (external creeds and modes of church government); but, IV. Hearts that are endowed with life (established on Christ in faith, united together in love, and ripening in hope for heaven.).—Idolatry, not only without the pale of the church, but also in it, and by means of it. [See Doctr. No. 1, above.].—The divine right, and the human imperfections of the visible church.—The mode in which God builds his temple: I. In the church; II. In the hearts of men; III. In heaven.—The manner in which the Holy Spirit builds the temple of God: I. In the church; II. In the closet; III., In the communion of saints; IV. At the consummation of the kingdom of God. (Kapff, at the Eccl. Convention, 1857).—The true temple of God: I. The visible temple ought not to be undervalued, Act_7:46-47; II. The invisible temple ought not to be forgotten, Act_7:48-50.
Act_7:51. Ye … uncircumcised in heart and ears.—When the heart is uncircumcised, the ears are in the same condition. When our penitent hearers experience the power of the word of God in their hearts, they are willing to lend an ear to our words. But when they repel the word from their hearts, they also stop their ears, like the hearers of Stephen, Act_7:57. (Ap. Past.).
Act_7:52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?—The striking uniformity observable in the kingdom of God [see Doctr. No. 2, above]: I. On the part of God (unchanging grace and truth); II. On the part of man (continued blindness and hardness of heart).—We often extol the excellence and holiness of the founders of useful institutions, without, however, manifesting their spirit. (Quesn.).
Act_7:53. Who have received the law … not kept it.—The pagans, who have received the law taught by nature, are punished when they transgress it [Rom_1:20 ff; Rom_2:14-15]. Of how much sorer punishment are they worthy, who have received the law by the revelation of God, and, nevertheless, trample it under their feet! (Starke).
On the whole discourse of stephen.—The holy men of God of former ages, exhibited to posterity: I. As heralds, who proclaim aloud the grace and truth of God; II. As preachers of repentance, who address a degenerate race.—[Stephen’s discussions with the Jews (Act_6:9-10; Act_7:2-53): I. The causes which led to them: (a) His evangelical labors; (b) their ignorance and prejudices. II. The manner in which they were conducted: (a) On the part of Stephen; (b) on the part of the Jews. III. The virtual triumph of the truth: (a) Revealed in “the wisdom and the spirit by which Stephen spake” (Act_6:10); (b) and in the inability of the Jews to resist by argument (Act_6:10; Act_7:54; Act_7:57). IV. The results: (a) Revengeful feelings in the adversaries of the truth; (b) conviction produced in the minds of the candid. (The whole suggesting the following: (1) The repetition of such scenes in the subsequent history of religion; (2) the weapons which religion employs; (3) The guilt of those who reject religious truth; (4) The final decision of all disputes by the Judge of the living and the dead.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
Act_7:44. a.— ἐí after ἧí in the textus receptus , is but feebly supported [by D. Å . Syr., etc.], and may unhesitatingly be regarded as spurious. [Omitted in A. B. C. Cod. Sin., and by Lach., Tisch. and Alf.— Tr.]
Act_7:44. b.—[For speaking, (Tynd.; Cranm.; Geneva; Rheims), the margin proposes the preferable version: who spake.—Tr.]
Act_7:45.—[ äéáäåîÜìåíïé ; for that came after (Cranmer), the margin offers the version (Tynd.; Geneva; Rheims): having received (i. e., it). “ ÄéáäÝ÷ïìáé —to receive through a series of persons, to receive by succession, to succeed to.” Robinson: Lex. N. T.—Alford translates: “having inherited it,” and regards that came after as “ungrammatical;” Hackett: “having received;” J. A. Alexander: “receiving.”—Tr.]
Act_7:46.—The reading ôῷ Èåῷ [of text. rec. after óêÞíùõá ] is genuine, according to the testimony of A. C. E., of all the ancient versions, and of the fathers; Lachmann, on the other hand, prefers ôῷ ïῖêῳ , which is found, it is true, in B. D. H., but does not equally well suit the context. [ ïἴêῳ occurs also in Cod. Sin. (original); a later hand substituted Èåῷ .—Tr.]
Act_7:48.—The textus receptus, following the authority of H, and several fathers, inserts after ÷åéñïðïéÞôïéò the word íáïῖò , which is wanting in all the other MSS. of the first rank [A. B. C. D. and also Cod. Sin. Syr. Vulg., etc.], and is evidently an explanatory addition of a copyist. Bengel had already assigned this character to it. [Rejected by the recent editors; “a gloss from Act_17:24.” (de Wette).—Tr.]
Act_7:51.—The plural, êáñäßáéò , is attested by A. C. D., [and also Cod. Sin.] it is true, and adopted by Lachmann, whereas the singular, ôῇ êáñäßᾳ , occurs only in E. H.; but the latter is, on the other hand, sustained by the ancient oriental versions [but not the Vulg.: cordibus], and by the majority of the fathers. The plural seems to be an alteration to suit, partly ἀðåñßôìçôïé which precedes, and partly the parallel term ὠóßí , which follows; the singular would scarcely have been substituted by later copyists for the plural, if the latter had been the original reading. [The sing. adopted by Tisch. and Alf.—Tr.]
Act_7:52. ἐãÝíåóèå is, without doubt, the genuine reading [found in A. B. C. D. E., and adopted by Lach. Tisch., and Alf.], while ãåãÝíçóèå [of text. rec.] is supported by only a few of the oldest MSS. [H., etc.—Cod. Sin. exhibits åãåíåóèáé .—Tr.]