μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πατ

It seems evident, that the Jewish chronology, which Stephen follows, was at fault here, owing to the circumstance of Terah’s death being mentioned Genesis 11:32, before the command of Abram to leave Haran;—it not having been observed that the mention is anticipatory. And this is confirmed by Philo having fallen into the same mistake, de Migr. Abrah. § 32, vol. i. p. 464, πρότερον μὲν ἐκ τῆς χαλδαϊκῆς ἀναστὰς γῆς ἀβραὰμ ᾤκησεν εἰς χαῤῥάν· τελευτήσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖθε καὶ ἐκ ταύτης μετανίσταται. It is observable that the Samaritan Pentateuch in Genesis 11:32, for 205, reads 145, which has most probably been an alteration to remove the apparent inconsistency. The subterfuge of understanding the spiritual death of Terah, who is, as a further hypothesis, supposed to have relapsed into idolatry at Haran, appears to have originated with the Rabbis (see Kuinoel ad loc. and Lightf. Hor. Heb.) on discovering that their tradition was at variance with the sacred chronology. They have not been without followers in modern Christendom. It is truly lamentable to see the great Bengel, warped by the unworthy effort of squaring at all hazards, the letter of God’s word in such matters, write thus: ‘Abram, dum Thara vixit in Haran, domum quodammodo paternam habuit in Haran, in terra Canaan duntaxat peregrinum agens; mortuo autem patre, plane in terra Canaan domum unice habere cœpit.’ (This alteration of relation in the land being expressed by μετῴκισεν αὐτὸν εἰς!) The way in which the difficulty has been met by Wordsworth and others, viz. that we have no right to assume that Abram was born when Terah was 70, but may regard him as the youngest son, would leave us in this equally unsatisfactory position:—Terah, in the course of nature, begets his son Abram at 130 (205–75): yet this very son Abram regards it as incredible that he himself should beget a son at 99 (Genesis 17:1; Genesis 17:17); and on the fact of the birth of Isaac being out of the course of nature, most important Scriptural arguments and consequences are founded, cf. Romans 4:17-21, Hebrews 11:11-12. We may fairly leave these Commentators with their new difficulty: only remarking for our instruction, how sure those are to plunge into hopeless confusion, who, from motives however good, once begin to handle the word of God deceitfully. μετ. αὐτ. εἰς] In these words Stephen clearly recognizes the second command, to migrate from Haran to Canaan: and as clearly therefore made no mistake in Acts 7:2, but applied the expressed words of the second command to the first injunction, the λόγιον of Philo.

Verse 5

5. οὐκ ἔδωκεν] There is no occasion here to wrest our text in order to produce accordance with the history. The field which Abraham bought for the burial of his dead surely did not come under the description of κληρονομία, nor give him any standing as a possessor in the land. To avoid this seeming inconsistency, Schöttgen and Bengel lay a stress on ἔδωκεν, ‘agrum illum … non ex donatione divina accepit Abraham, sed emit, ipsa emtione peregrinum eum esse docente’ (Bengel). Kuinoel and Olshausen take οὐκ for οὔπω.

καί before ἐπηγγ. is not ‘yet’ (Beza), nor is ἐπηγγ. to be construed pluperfect (id.); and he promised is the simple rendering of the words, and the right one. The following καί is by Kuin. rendered ‘nimirum:’ but again it is only the simple copula, וּלְזַרְעֲךָ .

Verse 6-7

6, 7.] A free citation from the LXX, with the words καὶ λατρ. μοι ἐν τ. τόπ. τούτῳ adapted and added from Exodus 3:12. The shifts of some Commentators to avoid this plain fact are not worth recounting: but again, the student who would not handle the word of God deceitfully should be here and every where on his guard against them.

The round number, 400 years, given here and Gen. l.c, is further specified Exodus 12:40 as 430. (See Galatians 3:17, and note.)

Verse 7

7.] ὁ θεὸς εἶπεν is inserted by Stephen in passing from the narrative form ( τὸ σπ. αὐτοῦ) into the direct ( κρ. ἐγώ).

Verse 8

οὕτως, thus, ‘in this new covenant state;’—or, ‘in fulfilment of the promise of seed implied in the above words.’ In this word οὕτως lies hid the germ of the subsequent teaching of the Holy Spirit by St. Paul, Galatians 3.

Verse 9

9.] Here we have the first hint of the rebellious spirit in Israel, which the progress of the history brings out.

Verse 10

χάριν κ. σοφ.] No Hendiadys: favour, so that he was acceptable to Pharaoh (see reff.): and wisdom, so that Ph. consulted him and followed his suggestion, especially in the important case recorded Genesis 41:38.

κατέστησεν] viz. Pharaoh: a change of subject: see reff. Gen.

Verse 14

Verse 16

The facts, as related in the O. T., were these: Jacob, dying in Egypt, was (Genesis 50:13) taken into the land of Canaan, and buried in the cave of Machpelah, before Mamre (on the rest of the verse see below): Joseph, dying also in Egypt, was taken in a coffin (Genesis 50:26) at the Exodus (Exodus 13:19), and finally buried (Joshua 24:32) at Shechem. Of the burial of the other patriarchs the sacred text says nothing, but rather by the specification in Exodus 13:19, leaves it to be inferred that they were buried in Egypt. Josephus, Antt. ii. 8. 2, relates that they were taken and buried in Hebron, and adds, B. J. iv. 9. 7, ὧν καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἐν τῇδε τῇ πολίχνῃ (Hebron) δείκνυται, πάνυ καλῆς μαρμάρου καὶ φιλοτίμως εἰργασμένα:—the Rabbinical traditions mentioned by Wetst. and Lightf. report them to have been buried in Sychem: and Jerome (Ep. ad Eustochium: Epitaph. Paulæ, 108 (27) 13, vol. i., p. 703) relating the pilgrimages of Paula to the sacred places, says: “transivit Sichem, … atque inde divertens vidit duodecim Patriarcharum sepulchra.” These traditions probably Stephen followed; and, in haste or inadvertence, classed Jacob with the rest.

ᾧ ὠνήσατο ἀβραάμ] The burying-place which Abraham bought was not at Sychem, but (Genesis 23:3-20) at Hebron, and was bought of Ephron the Hittite. It was Jacob who (Genesis 33:19) bought a field where he had pitched his tent, near Sychem, of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father: and no mention is made of its being for a burying-place. The two incidents are certainly here confused: and no ingenuity of the Commentators has ever devised an escape from the inference. The mention of a few such attempts may suffice.—(1) The omission of ἀβραάμ (Beza, Valck., Kuin., Schött., al.) against all manuscript evidence (not excepting E, the reading of which, variously stated by Meyer and Tischendorf, has been ascertained by inspection),—and against the construction also; for after μετετέθησαν, ἰακώβ could hardly be the subject to ὠνήσατο:—(2) rendering, against all grammar, while omitting ἀβραάμ, ὠνήσατο ‘emptum erat’ (Kuin.):—(3) construing ἀβραάμ, Abrahamides, i.e. Jacob (Surenhus. al.):—(4) that of Wordsworth, made up of—omitting Jacob from the grammatical construction (see above);—proving, from Jerome and Bede⁽⁴⁵⁾ (without any allusion to the passage of Josephus above cited!), that the other patriarchs were buried at Shechem:—a priori reasons why Stephen should have chosen to bring forward Shechem and not Hebron; reasons (see Wordsw.’s note) not very creditable, if they existed: &c. &c.

The fact of the mistake occurring where it does, will be far more instructive to the Christian student than the most ingenious solution of the difficulty could be, if it teaches him fearlessly and honestly to recognize the phænomena presented by the text of Scripture, instead of wresting them to suit a preconceived theory. I entirely agree with Wordsworth, that “there is nothing in these difficulties which invalidates the claims of St. Stephen to Inspiration,” any more than those expressions in Scripture “invalidate its inspiration,” which imply that the sun revolves round the earth. But as Wordsw. lives in days when men are no longer burnt for asserting that the earth moves, he surely might abstain from railing in such unmeasured terms (see his Acts, p. 35, Colossians 1) at those who in contending for common fairness and honesty find it necessary to carry somewhat further the same canon of reasonable interpretation. Humble searchers after divine truth will not be terrified by being charged with “assumption and conceit,” or being told that their exegesis can produce no result but “degeneracy, degradation, disbelief, and demoralization.” But they will deeply feel it to be their duty, to caution the student against all crooked and disingenuous ways of handling the word of God. “Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis.”

Verse 17

17.] καθώς, not ‘when’ (as E. V., Beza, Kuin.), but as, ‘in proportion as.’ See ref.

Verse 19

Verse 20

Verse 22

δυνατὸς ἐν λόγοις] So Josephus calls Moses πλήθεσιν ὁμιλεῖν πιθανώτατος, but late in his course, during the journey through the wilderness;—when the divine Spirit, as the book of Deuteronomy abundantly testifies, had turned his ‘slowness of speech’ into the most fervid eloquence. That he was so thus early, during his Egyptian course, was probably reported by tradition, but hardly seems to agree with Exodus 4:10-16.

Verse 23

23. τεσσερακονταετὴς χρ.] μέγας γενόμενος M⁽⁴⁶⁾, Exodus 2:11, LXX. The exact age was traditional, see Lightf.

ἀνέβη] No nominative (as διαλογισμός, Kuin.) must be supplied: it is impersonal; see reff.

Verse 24

24.] τὸν αἰγύπτιον, from the history being so universally known, that the agent in the ἀδικία would be readily supplied: see Winer, edn. 6, § 67. 1, d.

Verse 25

Here we have again the resistance to the Holy Spirit hinted: see Acts 7:51, and note on Acts 7:2.

Verse 26

26.] αὐτοῖς, to them, two of them, taken as representing his brethren the children of Israel.

συνήλασεν, not imperf., ‘he endeavoured to unite:’ the aorist will not bear this sense: nor is it needed:—the act, on Moses’ part, was complete;—not ‘he would have set them at one’ (E. V.), but, he set them at one. If the explanatory reading συνήλλασσεν be taken, we then have the imperfect force—“he was reconciling,” or “attempted to reconcile,” them.

ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί should be taken together, as in Genesis 13:8, ἄνθρωποι ἀδελφοί ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς. See also ch. Acts 2:14 (De W.).

Verse 27

Verse 29

υἱοὺς δύο] Exodus 2:22; Exodus 4:20; Exodus 18:3.

Verse 30

30. ἐτ. τεσς.] This follows from the tradition of Acts 7:23, combined with Exodus 7:7, ‘Moses in palatio Pharaonis degit XL annos, in Midiane XL annos, et ministravit Israel XL annos.’ Bereshith Rabba, f. 115. 3. (Mey.)

σινᾶ] Horeb, Exodus 3:1. But both were points of the same mountain range, and the names were convertibly used. In Exod., Levit., and Numb., the law is said to have been given from Sinai; in Deut. from Horeb. ‘The desert of Mount Sina’ is the desert in which Mt. S. is situated. So ‘the Peak of Derbyshire,’ originally no doubt some single hill, has come to mean the whole district in which that hill is situated.

ἄγγελος] Here, as continually in the O. T., the angel bears the authority and presence of God Himself: which angel, since God giveth not his glory to another, must have been the great Angel of the covenant, the מַלְאַךְ פָּנָיו of Isaiah 63:9, ‘the Angel of His Presence,’—the SON OF GOD. See below on εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων, Acts 7:53.

Stier remarks, that this second appearance of God, to Moses (see Acts 7:2), introduces the legal dispensation, as the first, to Abraham, the patriarchal.

The readings of the LXX, as well as of our text, vary between πυρὶ φλογός (B) and φλογὶ πυρός (A). The Heb. is בְּלבַּת־אַשׁ . The construction is, in the fiery flame (or, the flaming fire) of a bush.

Verse 32

οὐκ ἐτόλμ. καταν. = εὐλαβεῖτο κατεμβλέψαι, LXX.

Verse 33

33.] See Joshua 5:15. Putting off the sandals was a mark of reverence. The priests performed all their ministrations barefooted. The Arabs to this day continue the practice: they always enter their mosques barefooted. Among the Pythagoreans it was a maxim, ἀνυπόδητος θῦε κ. προσκύνει, Iamblich. vita Pythag 105 (Mey.). So Juvenal, Sat. vi. 158, ‘Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata reges.’

On the sanctity of the place, Chrys. remarks,— οὐδαμοῦ ναός, κ. ὁ τόπος ἅγιος τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ κ. ἐνεργείᾳ τοῦ χριστοῦ.

Verse 34

34.] ἰδὼν εἶδον, LXX. Emphatic, to express the רָאֹה רָאִיתִי of the Heb., as often elsewhere. The instances commonly cited from the classics, of the phrase φεύγων ἐκφεύγειν, Herod. v. 95; Aristoph. Acharn. 177; Nub. 168; Eur. Phœn. 1231, &c., do not apply: for, as Porson observes, ‘in his locis simplici verbo conatus, composito effectus indicatur.’

ἀποστείλω] aorist subjunctive, as LXX, Exodus 3:10. See Winer, edn. 6, § 41. a. 4. a.

Verse 35

35.] The second τοῦτον is repeated emphatically. So οὗτος again, Acts 7:36-38 [to impress on them God’s choice of one whom they rejected].

ἠρνήσαντο, Acts 7:27. The rejecter of Moses there is regarded as the representative of the nation: see note on αὐτοῖς, Acts 7:26. In this express mention of the rejection of Moses by the Jews and his election and mission by God, the parallel of Jesus Christ is no doubt in Stephen’s mind, and the inference intended to be drawn, that it does not follow that GOD REJECTS those whom THEY REJECTED.

The difficulty of ἀπέσταλκεν has caused it to be altered into the historic tense, ἀπέστειλεν. But the perf. sets forth not only the fact of God’s sending Moses then, but the endurance of his mission till now—him hath God sent: with a closer reference than before, to Him whom God had now exalted as the true ἄρχοντα κ. λυτρωτήν. See ch. Acts 5:31.

Verse 37

Verse 38

That Moses conversed with both the Angel of the covenant and our fathers, implies that he was the mediator between them, as indeed ὃς ἐδέξατ. λόγ. ζ. more plainly declares.

ἐκκλησίᾳ probably, the assembly held (Exodus 19) for the promulgation of the law at Mt. Sinai, not ‘the Church’ generally: but the article does not determine this: it would be expressed, whichever meaning we take. Wordsw. observes on the meaning which the words ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ carry for the student of Christian prophecy, Revelation 12:1-6.

λόγια ζῶντα] living, see reff., not = ζωοποιοῦντα (Grot., Kuin.), ‘life-giving:’ still less to be understood ‘given vivá voce’ (Pisc. Alberti). So Soph. Gild⁽⁴⁷⁾ Tyr. 482, τὰ μεσόμφαλα γᾶς ἀπονοσφίζων | μαντεῖα· τὰ δʼ αἰεὶ | ζῶντα περιποτᾶται.

Verse 39

39.] Another instance, brought home again by the words οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν, of rejection of God’s appointed messenger and servant.

ἐστράφησαν] they turned back in their heart to Egypt: not, ‘they wished to return to Egypt,’ of which in Exodus 32 there is no trace (but later, in Numbers 14:4), and which would hardly suit προπορεύσονται; but ‘they apostatized in heart to the Egyptian idolatries.’ The very title by which Aaron proclaims his idol, is, ‘These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt,’ Exodus 32:4. See also Nehemiah 9:18.

Verse 40

40. προπορ.] As God had done in the pillar of the cloud and fire. The plural is not (as Kuin.) put for θεόν, but is used categorically: not perhaps without implying also, that the only two religions were, the worship of Jehovah, and that of idols, a multitude. The plural is used by Aaron, see above.

In the οὗτος may be implied, as Meyer suggests, ‘who was the strong opponent of idolatry.’

Verse 41

41. ἐμοσχοποίησαν] apparently in imitation of Apis, a bull worshipped at Memphis as the living symbol of Osiris. Herod. iii. 28. Diod. Sic. i. 21. Strabo, xvii. 805 (Winer, Realw. ‘Kalb’). The ox was a common symbolic form of idols in the East; it was one of the cherubic forms, Ezekiel 1:10; and the most recent discoveries at Nineveh have brought to light colossal bulls. Sir Gardiner Wilkinson (second series, ii. 97, Winer) thinks the golden calves of Israel to have been imitations of Mnevis, a bull kept at Heliopolis (Diod. Sic. i. 21. Strabo, xvii. 803) as a living symbol of the sun. Jeroboam afterwards set up golden calves at Bethel and Dan, and with the same proclamation: see 1 Kings 12:28.

Verse 42

παρέδωκεν—not ‘suffered them to fall into:’ all these explainings away of the strong expressions of Scripture belong to the rationalistic school of interpreters (which is not modern merely: even Chrysostom has here εἴασε): it was a judicial delivering up, not a mere letting alone, see reff.

τῇ στρ. τ. οὐρ.] This fact is not mentioned in the Pentateuch, but may refer to the worship of Baal. In aftertimes we have frequent traces of star-worship: see 2 Kings 17:16; 2 Kings 21:3; 2 Kings 21:5; 2 Kings 23:4-5; Jeremiah 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5. See also Deuteronomy 4:19; Deuteronomy 17:3; Job 31:26.

βίβλ. τ. προφ.] The book of the prophets, regarded as a whole. The citation (ref.) is from the LXX.

μὴ σφάγ. κ. θ.] A question usually preceding a negative answer, see Matthew 7:9; Romans 11:1; 1 Corinthians 9:8 al.: but not always: see Matthew 12:23 (Acts 26:22); John 4:29; John 8:22. Winer, edn. 6, § 57. 3, b. There is no stress on μοί (‘Is it to Me that ye offered, &c. (i.e. to me only?’) as Rosenm., Heinr., Olsh., Kuin., Stier: the position of μοί in the sentence will not allow of this). I should take the question here according to the usual construction, and understand it as a reproach, implying that God does not receive as offered to Him, sacrifices in which He has been made to share with idols:—it is not true that ye offered to Me (but no stress on Me) sacrifices, &c.; ‘I regard it as never having happened.’

Verse 43