] The answer, by God Himself: Yea

Stephen was not the sole dishonourer, if a dishonourer, of the holy place—their fathers had done it before.

΄ολόχ] So the LXX: the Heb. has מַלְכְּכֶם, ‘of your king;’—the LXX probably followed another reading ( מלכם is actually found in 577 Kennicot and 440¹ De Rossi), or perhaps explained the expression by the cognate name of this god. Moloch (Winer, Realw.) was the Phœnician Saturn: his image was of brass with the head of an ox, and outstretched arms of a man, hollow; and human sacrifices (of children) were offered, by laying them in these arms and heating the image by a fire kindled within. The rigid prohibitions of the worship of Moloch (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5) were openly transgressed by Ahaz, 2 Kings 16:3; by Manasseh, ib. 2 Kings 21:6; see also Acts 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 32:35. In the kingdom of Israel this abomination had been long practised, see 2 Kings 17:17; Ezekiel 23:37. We find traces of it at Carthage (Diod. Sic. xx. 14), among the Phœnicians (Q. Curt. iv. 3. 23. Euseb. laud. Const⁽⁴⁹⁾ xiii. 4. Porpbyr. de Abstin. ii. 56),—among the Cretans and Rhodians (Porphyr. ibid.), and the Assyrian colonists at Sepharvaim, 2 Kings 17:31.

τὸ ἄστρον τοῦ θ. ῥεφάν] Heb. כִּיּוּן, Chiún; but what the meaning of either this or ῥαιφάν (LXX) is, we have nothing but conjecture to inform us. The principal opinions have been (1) that of Kircher, who maintains ῥεφάν ( ῥηφάν) to be a Coptic word, signifying the planet Saturn, and answering to the Arabic ‘Kewan:’ (2) that of Hengstenberg, Authentie des Pentat. 110 ff., who entirely repudiates Kircher’s interpretation, and supposes ῥηφάν to have arisen from a misreading of ריון for כיון. But Winer (Realw.) prefers the former opinion, and supports it by the authority of eminent modern Coptic and Arabic scholars.

De Wette and Hengstenberg believe כִּיּוּן to be an appellative noun, and would render it, Gestell, the carriage or frame, on which the star or image was carried: ‘imaginem idolorum vestrorum,’ Vulg. Amos. l. c. Wordsw. after Cyr⁽⁵⁰⁾ alex. in Catena, supposes ῥεφάν to signify σκότισμα, or blindness, and suggests that the name may have been one given by the Jews in contempt, like Beelzebub, to the god of the Ekronites. See Smith, Bibl. Dict., art. Remphan.

βαβυλῶνος] δαμασκοῦ, LXX and Heb. The fulfilment of the prophecy would make it very natural to substitute that name which had become inseparably associated with the captivity.

Verse 44

44. ἡ σκ. τ. μαρτ.] In opposition to the σκ. just mentioned: but also in pursuance of one of the great aims of the speech, to shew that holiness is not confined to locality or building. This part of his subject Stephen now enters on more particularly. The words ἡ σκ. τ. μαρτ. are the LXX rendering of אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד (Numbers 16:18-19 al.) ‘the tabernacle of the assembly’ (or ‘congregation,’ E. V.). They apparently derived the latter word from עוּד, ‘testatus est,’ instead of יָעַד, ‘constituit.’

τύπον] (ref.): another contrast, cf. τύπους οὓς ἐποιήσατε, Acts 7:43.

Verse 45

45. εἰσήγ.] absolute: introduced, viz. εἰς τὴν γῆν:—not connected with ἐν τῇ κατασχ.,—see below.

διαδεξ.] Having inherited it, i.e. succeeded to its custody and privileges. The sense of ‘successores,’ ‘qui majores exceperunt,’ is ungrammatical; as also is that of ‘postea,’ ‘deinceps.’

ἐν τῇ κατασχέσει] at (or ‘in’) their taking possession. The Vulg. rendering, ‘in possessionem gentium,’ is philologically inadmissible; ‘in terram a gentibus occupatam’ (Calvin, De Dieu, Grot., Kuin.) is still worse. The passage of the LXX, Numbers 32:5, δοθήτω ἡ γῆ αὕτη τοῖς οἰκέταις σου ἐν κατασχέσει, brought forward to justify these renderings, is directly against them. The word is one of those examples of verbal nouns in - σις where the meaning hovers uncertainly between the act of doing and the thing done. Such is often the case with καύχησις in St. Paul. Cf. for a very near approach to the concrete meaning of this word, Numbers 27:4; Numbers 27:7. But, abstract or concrete, it always, as might be expected from the very composition of the word, is used of that final and settled possession which Israel took of the land, not of that transitory possession from which the gentes were driven out. So that Wordsw.’s rendering, “the portion, or possession of the Gentiles,” is out of the question.

The martyr combines rapidly a considerable period, during which this κατάσχεσις and this expulsion was taking place (for it was not complete till the time of David) in order to arrive at the next great event of his history, the substitution of the temple of Solomon for the tabernacle.

Verse 46

46. ᾐτήσατο] asked permission, see 2 Samuel 7:2 ff., in which this request is made through Nathan the prophet, and at first conceded by Nathan, though afterwards, on a revelation made from God, denied:—not ‘wished’(Grot., Kuin.: ‘desired,’ E. V.). The vow (a species of prayer) here referred to, is defined by the words εὑρεῖν σκήνωμα, to be that mentioned Psalms 131:1-3 (LXX).

Verse 48

καθὼς ὁ πρ. λ.] We have in substance the same declaration by Solomon himself at the dedication of his temple, 1 Kings 8:27; see also the beautiful prayer of David, 1 Chronicles 29:10-19. The citation is freely from the LXX.

The student will not fail to be interested in observing the apparent reference to this declaration in Stephen’s apology, by St. Paul, ch. Acts 17:24.

Verse 51

σκληρ. κ. ἀπερ.] Words and figures familiar to the prophets in speaking of the rebellious Israel: see, besides reff., Deuteronomy 9:6; Deuteronomy 9:13; Nehemiah 9:16 :—Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6 Heb. See also Romans 2:29.

ὠσίν] I should hardly think of any allusion to Psalms 40 (39) 6,—because the LXX have rendered ‘mine ears hast thou opened’ by σῶμα κατηρτίσω μοι.

τῷ πν. τ. ἁγ. ἀντ.] Apparently a reference to Isaiah 63:10. The instances as yet had been confined to οἱ πατ. ὑμ.: now he has arrived at their own times. The two are taken up again in the next verse.

Verse 52

52. τίνα τ. προφ.] See Matthew 23:31 ff.: 2 Chronicles 36:16; where the same general expressions are used of their persecuting the prophets. Such sayings are not to be pressed to the letter, but represent the uniform attitude of disobedience and hostility which they assumed to the messengers of God. See also the parable, Matthew 21:35.

τοὺς προκ.] The office of all the prophets, see ch. Acts 3:18. The assertion is repeated, to connect them, by this title, with Him, whom they announced.

τοῦ δικαίου] Schöttg. vol. ii. p. 18, has shewn from the Rabbinical writings that this name was used by the Jews to designate the Messiah. See reff. and note on James 5:6.

προδόται] By Judas’s treachery, of which the Sanhedrists had been the accomplices; Matthew 26:14-16 :— φονεῖς, by the hands of the Romans; ch. Acts 2:23, note.

ἐγένεσθε is preferable not only on account of its manuscript authority, but as being the historical tense, like the rest. It was probably altered to the perfect, as suiting the time then present, better than the aorist.

Verse 53

εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων] Many explanations have been given. Chrys. διαταχθέντα νόμον λέγει, τὸν ἐγχειρισθέντα αὐτῷ διʼ ἄγγελον τὸν ὀφθέντα αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βάτῳ: and Œc⁽⁵¹⁾ νόμον λαβόντας διατάξεις ἔχοντα, αἵτινες ἰσάγγελον ἐποίουν πολιτείαν ἔχειν τοὺς τελοῦντας αὐτόν. Heinsius and Lightfoot understand by ἀγγέλ. the prophets: Grot., Calov., and Krebs, ‘præsentibus angelorum ordinibus,’ taking διαταγάς = διατάξεις in the sense of divisions of an army (Judith 8:36), in which it never occurs,—not to say that εἰς will not bear this: Beza, Calv., Pisc., Elsn., Hamm., Kuin., &c., ‘ab angelis promulgatum,’ which εἰς will not bear ( ἐν): Winer, Gr., edn. 6, § 32. 4, b, ‘as commands of angels’ (but see below), which, however, was not the fact (Mey., who refers to Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3, ἡμῶν τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων καὶ τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις διʼ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μαθόντων):—the Syriac version, ‘per mandatum angelorum:’—Vulg. and Calv., ‘in dispositione (or -onibus) angelorum:’ Schöttg., ‘per ministerium angelorum.’ These three last are precluded by the foregoing remarks. The key to the right rendering seems to be the similar expression in ref. Gal., ὁ νόμος διαταγεὶς διʼ ἀγγέλων. The law was given by God, but announced by angels. The people received God’s law then, εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων, at the injunction (a sense of διατ. amply justified, see Palm and Rost’s lex. διάταξις, and Polyb. iv. 19. 10; 87. 5: and preferred by Winer in his last edn., ut supra) of angels. So Matthew 12:41, μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα ἰῶνα, ‘they repented at the preaching of Jonas.’ The only other legitimate rendering, ‘as the injunctions of angels,’ comes under the objections made to Winer’s former view, above.

Verse 54

54.] διεπρ., see note on ref.

Verses 54-60

Verse 55

ἑστῶτα] A reason why the glorified Saviour was seen standing, and not sitting, has been pleasingly given by Chrysostom (in Cramer’s Catena): τί οὖν ἑστῶτα καὶ οὐχὶ καθήμενον; ἵνα δείξῃ τὴν ἀντίληψιν τὴν εἰς τὸν μάρτυρα· καὶ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς λέγεται “ ἀνάστα ὁ θεός.” Similarly Gregory the Great, Hom. ii. 29, vol. i. p. 1572, ‘Stephanus stantem vidit, quem adjutorem habuit.’ So also Arator, i. 611 ff. p. 124, ed. Migne, ‘pro martyre surgit, Quem tunc stare videt; confessio nostra sedentem Cum soleat celebrare magis.’ (See also the collect for St. Stephen’s day.) But not perhaps correctly: for ‘help’ does not seem here to be the applicable idea, but the confirmation of his faith by the ecstatic vision of the Saviour’s glory at God’s right hand.

I should be rather disposed to think that there was reference in the vision to that in Zechariah 3:1, where Zech. sees ἰησοῦν τὸν ἱερέα τὸν μέγαν, ἑστῶτα πρὸ προσώπου ἀγγέλου κυρίου. Stephen, under accusation of blaspheming the earthly temple, is granted a sight of the heavenly temple; being cited before the Sadducee High Priest who believed neither angel nor spirit, he is vouchsafed a vision of the heavenly HIGH PRIEST, standing and ministering at the throne amidst the angels and just men made perfect.

Verse 56

Verse 58

ἐλιθοβόλουν] they stoned him: an anticipation of the fact, the details of which follow: not, ‘they prepared to stone him:’ non ‘jam in itinere ad supplicii locum petulanter eum lapidibus lacessebant’ (Heinr.): nor need we conjecture ἐλιθολόγουν with Markland. Stoning was the punishment of blaspheming, Leviticus 24:16. The question whether this was a legal proceeding on sentence, or a tumultuary one, is not easy to answer. It would appear from John 18:31, that the Jews had not legally the power of putting any man to death (see note there). Certainly, from the narrative before us, and from the fact of a bloody persecution having taken place soon after it, it seems that the Jews did, by connivance of, or in the absence of the Procurator, administer summary punishments of this kind. But here no sentence is recorded: and perhaps the very violence and zelotic character of the execution might constitute it, not an encroachment on the power of the Procurator, as it would have been if strictly in form of law, but a mere outbreak, and as such it might be allowed to pass unnoticed. That they observed the forms of their own law, in the place and manner of the stoning, is no objection to this view.

οἱ μάρτυρες] See ref. [where it is enacted that the hands of the witnesses were to be first on the criminal to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people]. They disencumbered themselves of their loose outer garments, ὥστε εἶναι κοῦφοι καὶ ἀπαραπόδιστοι εἰς τὸ λιθοβολεῖν. Theophyl.

ἀπέθεντο] to keep them.

Such notices are deeply interesting, when we recollect by whom they were in all probability carefully inserted. See ch. Acts 22:19-20, and note on ch. Acts 26:10 :—from which it appears that Saul can certainly not have been less than thirty at this time. He was a member of the Sanhedrim, and soon after was despatched on an important mission with their authority.

Verse 59

δέξαι τὸ πν. μ.] The same prayer in substance had been made by our Lord on the cross (ref. Luke) to His Father. To Him was now committed the key of David. Similarly, the young man Saul, in after years: πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν, 2 Timothy 1:12.

Verse 60

60.] The more accurate philological Commentators, De Wette and Meyer, deny that στήσῃς here can, as ordinarily explained, refer to weighing (reff. Matt.; Jeremiah 39 (32) 10), since not the sin, but the punishment, would be the thing weighed out,—and it would be harsh to take the one for the other, in a sentence of this kind. Meyer would understand ἱστάναι as opposed to ἀφιέναι, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ‘Fix not this sin upon them:’ but De Wette, as seems to me more probably, renders it Reckon not this sin to them (‘lay not this sin to their charge,’ E. V.), supporting this by Romans 10:3.

This again was somewhat similar (though not exactly, see note there) to our Lord’s prayer, Luke 23:34.

ἐκοιμήθη] Not a Christian expression only: Wetstein, on Matthew 27:52, cites Jewish examples: and we have in the Anthology, iii. 1. 10, τῇδε σάων ὁ δίωνος ἀκάνθιος ἱερὸν ὕπνον | κοιμᾶται· θνήσκειν μὴ λέγε τοὺς ἀγαθούς. But it became the usual Christian term for death. Its use here, when the circumstances, and the actors in them, are remembered, is singularly touching, from the contrast.
08 Chapter 8
Verse 1

1. συνευδ.] See reff.: and compare his own confession, ch. Acts 26:9-11. From this time, the narrative takes up Saul, and, at first with considerable interruptions (ch. 8, 10, 11, 12.), but after ch. Acts 13:1 entirely, follows his history.

ἐν ἐκ. τῇ ἡμ. can hardly mean, as some (Dr. Burton, De Wette, Meyer, Stier) would render it, on that very day, viz. when Stephen was stoned. For what follows, πάντες δὲ διεσπάρησαν … cannot have happened on the same day, but would take some little time: and it is hardly allowable to render ἐγένετο ‘broke out.’ We have ἐν ἐκ. τῇ ἡμέρᾳ used indefinitely, Luke 6:23; John 14:20; John 16:23; John 16:26. In Luke 17:31 it has direct reference to a ἡμέρα just mentioned.

πάντες] Not perhaps literally,—or some of them soon returned: see ch. Acts 9:26-30. It may describe the general dispersion, without meaning that every individual fled.

σαμαρείας] Connected with Acts 8:4; this word is not without importance, as introducing the next step in the dissemination of the Gospel, according to our Lord’s command in ch. Acts 1:8.

πλὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων] Perhaps, from their exalted position of veneration by the people, the persecution did not extend to them: perhaps they remained, as possessed of superior firmness and devotion. But this latter reason is hardly applicable, after the command of our Lord, ‘When they persecute you in one city, flee to another.’ Matthew 10:23. Stier (Reden d. Apostel, i. 253) refers their remaining to an intimation of the Spirit, to stay and strengthen those who were left ( ἑτέρους γενέσθαι θράσους αἴτιοι, Chrys.). Mr. Humphry (Comm. on Acts) cites an ancient tradition, mentioned by Clem⁽⁵²⁾ Alex., Strom. vi. 5 ⁽⁴³⁾, end, p. 762 P, from the Prædicatio Petri (and by Euseb. H. E. Acts 8:18), that the Apostles were ordered by our Lord to remain at Jerusalem twelve years: φησὶν ὁ πέτρος εἰρηκέναι τὸν κύριον τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἐὰν μὲν οὖν τις θελήσῃ τοῦ ἰσραὴλ μετσνοῆσαι διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματός μου πιστεύειν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, ἀφεθήσονται αὐτῷ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι· μετὰ δώδεκα ἔτη ἐξέλθετε εἰς τὸν κόσμον, μή τις εἴπῃ οὐκ ἀκηκόαμεν. But this could not be the case, as we have Peter and John going down, to Samaria, Acts 8:14.

Verses 1-3

Verse 2

Verse 3

κατὰ τοὺς οἴκους, entering (the houses) from house to house,—a pregnant construction.

σύρων] So Philo, in Flacc. 9, vol. ii. p. 526, συρόμενοι κ. πατούμενοι διὰ τῆς πόλεως ἁπάσης ἐξαναλώθησαν.

παρεδίδου] viz. to the gaolers—so παραδιδοὺς εἰς φυλακάς, ch. Acts 22:4.

Verse 4

4.] μὲν οὖν resumes the subject dropped at the end of Acts 8:1, and determines this verse to be the opening of a new section, not the close of the former.

διῆλθ.] See reff.

εὐαγγ. τ. λόγ.] Here first we become acquainted with the missionary language so frequent in the rest of the book: and we have τὸν λόγον, an expression very familiar among Christians when the book was written, for [the fuller one which must have prevailed at first] τ. λ. τοῦ θεοῦ.

Verses 4-13

Verse 5

πόλιν τ. σαμ.] Verbatim as John 4:5, in which case it is specified as being Sychar (Sichem). As the words stand here ( πόλιν = τὴν πόλιν, after εἰς, compare also 2 Peter 2:6), seeing that σαμάρεια (Acts 8:9; Acts 8:14; ch. Acts 9:31; Acts 15:3) signifies the district, I should be inclined to believe that Sychem is here also intended. It was a place of rising importance, and in after-times eclipsed the fame of its neighbour Samaria, which latter had been, on its presentation by Augustus to Herod the Great, re-fortified and called Sebaste, Jos. Antt. xv. 7. 3, and 8. 5. It still, however, bore the name of Samaria, Jos. xx. 6. 2,—where, from the context, the district can hardly be intended.

αὐτοῖς] The inhabitants, implied in πόλις.

Verse 6