Deeper Commentary
7:1
And the high priest said: Are these things so?-
The "things" were the accusations of blasphemy against the temple and
Mosaic law. Actually Stephen doesn't comment on those issues directly,
although he does develop the theme that God has relationships with people
in any place, and doesn't require a temple for that fellowship with man.
Rather is Stephen's focus upon Israel's historical rejections of the
Lord's prototypes; and it was this which led to the explosion of bad
conscience anger which led to Stephen's death. But his murder was
therefore not related to the "things" of which he was initially accused.
7:2
And he said: Brothers and fathers, listen-
Stephen did not consider the Jews to be somehow not his brethren.
This open approach to fellowship with the Jews, despite their
misunderstandings and misbelief and aggression, is surely a challenge to
all who insist on rigid lines of fellowship demarcation.
The God of glory- See on 6:15. In his famous final
speech, Stephen evidently had humming in his mind the theme of the glory
of God. He begins by saying that “The God of glory appeared…”. God heard
that speech, and read his mind. And responded in an appropriate way- for
to give Stephen final strength to face death, God made His glory appear to
Stephen (Acts 7:55). And so it can be for us- although it all depends what
we have humming in our hearts. The context of Stephen's speech is his
defence against the accusation that he was blaspheming the temple. The
Jews considered that God's glory was uniquely located within that
building; even though there is no evidence that the shekinah glory was
visible at that time. Stephen's response is that God's glory was apparent
to Abraham in Gentile Mesopotamia, outside even the limits of the land
promised to Abraham. There is the implication in the language of
'appearance' that Abraham had some kind of a vision of the cherubim glory
of Yahweh, although Genesis is silent about that.
Appeared to our father Abraham- Stephen was not merely
witnessing against these men. He was appealing for their repentance, and
does so by building bridges over what was common ground- in this case,
having Abraham as their common father. See on 7:19 Our race... our
fathers and 7:26 Gentlemen...
Before he dwelt in Haran- See on :4.
7:3 And said to him, Leave
your land and your kindred- Pointedly omitting mention of "your
father's house". Gen. 12:1 records that the Lord had told Abram to leave
his country, kindred and his father's house, but goes on to say
that "So Abram departed" from Haran "as the Lord had spoken unto
him" (Gen. 12:4). The implication is that the command which he was given
in Ur, was repeated to him in Haran, with the additional information that
he must now also leave "your father's house". Stephen is making the point
that Abraham's 'obedience' was counted to him by grace; righteousness was
imputed to him, when he had a shaky start in his faithfulness. For he left
because his father's family also left... not because he actually was
obedient to the Divine call.
And go into- Gk. 'come here into'; as if God was already there
in Canaan.
The land which I shall show you- According to Heb. 11:8,
Abraham embarked on the journey not knowing or [Gk.] 'understanding' where
he was going. Accurate knowledge of the literal details of the Kingdom
whither we are headed is not therefore the issue here; rather is it simple
faith in response to God's calling. This is what is required at the start
of the journey; for Abraham is held up as the pattern for us all. Only
later was Abraham 'shown' the land. The same word is used of how the devil
of the Lord's own thoughts / temptations 'showed' Him the future Kingdom
of God on earth (Mt. 4:8). Revelation of Divine truth is therefore
progressive; after some time leading the disciples, the Lord then 'shewed'
them the details of His sufferings (Mt. 16:21 s.w.), and after His
resurrection 'shewed' Peter more details (Acts 10:28 s.w.) and 'shewed'
latter day events to His followers (Rev. 1:1; 4:1 s.w.). Indeed there are
seven references in the visions of Revelation to believers being 'shewn'
things. Even the Father's 'shewing' of things to His Son was progressive
(Jn. 5:20). We are not, therefore, to require of those just beginning
their journey a comprehensive grasp of the things which have been 'shewn'
to us who have been on the road of faith for some time already.
7:4 Then he left the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran-
Stephen begins by pointing out that the father of Israel, Abraham, was
himself weak in faith in response to the promises. He was asked to leave
his family and homeland in Mesopotamia- but he didn't. His father took him
and emigrated from Ur. And only when his father died did Abram move on
further. According to Jewish tradition, Abraham was 23 years in Haran.
"From thence... God removed him into (Canaan)" (Acts 7:4 R.V.).
But if God had forced him to be "removed”, Abram's response to
the promises would not be held up for us as the great example of faith
which it is. The call of Abram is an essay in partial response being
confirmed by God. God removed him through repeating the promises
to Abram in Haran, and the providential fact that Terah died there. The
fact that Abram "dwelt" in Haran, despite his call to leave, with his
kindred and father's house shows a slow reaction to the command to leave
those things and go to the unknown land, which by now Abram must have
guessed was Canaan- or at least, he would have realized that Canaan was en
route to it.
And from there, when his father was dead- Instead of doing as
he was told and breaking with his father and immediate family, Abraham was
only obedient by default. His father died, and he moved on. And there is
historical evidence that there was war at the time and many left Haran in
any case due to push factors; rather than Abraham being obedient to the
simple words of God.
God sent him
into this land, wherein you now dwell-
The Greek word is only used once again in the New Testament, and again by
Stephen, in speaking of how God 'carried away' apostate Israel into
captivity (Acts 7:43). The connection may imply that Abraham was not at
his strongest when God carried him away into Canaan. Whatever, the point
is surely clear enough that Abraham did not go of his own freewill
obedience to Canaan, in response to God's clear command to him. Rather did
God's grace as it were pick him up and take him there. This was an Old
Testament example of God's Spirit working in the lives of His people to
bring about their obedience; and it was that same gift of the Spirit which
Peter offered to Israel at this time, speaking of how God would give them
not only forgiveness but also even repentance itself- a mental attitude.
7:5
And He gave him no inheritance in it, no, not
enough to set his foot on it, and He promised that He would give it to him
in possession and to his seed after him, when he had no child-
The Jews were therefore wrong in thinking that their dwelling in Palestine
was some kind of fulfilment of the promises to Abraham. For God keeps His
promises, and Abraham must therefore be resurrected to receive the
inheritance in the Kingdom when it is established on earth at the Lord's
return. He didn't get anything in this life, because he had to even buy a
plot of land in which to bury Sarah.
7:6 And God spoke in this
way- Because Stephen is changing the pronouns of the original
quotation, and also summarizing the essence of what God was saying. Here
we have an example of how extra words and verbal devices had to be used in
the absence of anything like square brackets. But Stephen is also mixing
quotation with interpretation, as was and is the Jewish way of using
Scripture.
That his seed should live in a strange land, and
that they would bring them into bondage and- Remember that
Stephen is seeking to demonstrate that God's presence is independent of
sacred spaces such as the temple or land of Israel. Heb. 11:9 surely
alludes here by saying that Abraham "went to live in the land of promise,
as in a foreign land" (ESV). These are the same Greek words translated
"strange land". For Abraham, the land of Israel was as a foreign land. And
here Stephen speaks of Egypt as a strange / foreign land. The confusion is
because in a sense, whilst the land is inherited by Abraham, the whole
earth is a foreign land to God's people- including the geographical
territory of Israel.
Treat them badly- The same word as in :19. But this is the
term which is used about how the Jews abused the Christian preachers (Acts
12:1; 14:2; 18:10). What the Jews were doing to Stephen put them in the
position of the Gentile Egyptians, persecuting the true Israel of God.
Four hundred years- The idea is that it would be unreasonable
to suggest that God had no fellowship with anyone amongst His people for
such a s long period as four hundred years. And yet they were away from
the supposed sacred space of the land promised to Abraham.
7:7
And the nation to which they shall be in bondage
will I judge, said God- This is added because Stephen
appears to be summarizing the essence of God's word rather than making
verbatim quotation.
And after that shall they come out and serve Me in this place-
This is neither a quotation from the Hebrew [Masoretic] text nor from the
standard version of the Septuagint. The text of Gen. 15:14 reads:
"Afterward they will come out with great wealth". Apparently Stephen is
alluding to Ex. 3:12: "When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you
shall serve God on this mountain". Perhaps this is why the 'quotation' is
introduced by the otherwise strange comment that "God spoke in this way"
(:6). The essence of what Stephen understood God to say is quoted as if it
is actual quotation. This kind of thing is common in Rabbinic exegesis.
And yet why does Stephen change "this mountain", of Sinai, to "this
place", a phrase commonly understood to refer to the temple? The point was
that God could be served on a mountain, outside of Palestine, just as much
as in the Jerusalem temple. For debate about the temple is the context of
the whole speech.
7:8
And He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and
so Abraham begat Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac
begat Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs- Covenant
relationship with God doesn't depend upon sacred space, temples, holy land
etc.
7:9
And the patriarchs, moved with jealousy against
Joseph- Stephen is clearly presenting Joseph as a type of the
Lord. And Luke has recently used the same word to describe how it was
jealousy which led the Sanhedrin and Jewish leadership to oppose the
Christians (Acts 5:17).
Sold him- Just as the Lord was 'sold' for 30 pieces of silver.
Into Egypt- This is one of a number of aspersions that the
Judaism of Stephen's day was no better than Gentile Egypt, the persecutor
of God's true Israel. Or it could be that we are to see the brothers as
representing the Jews, and the selling or 'handing over' of Joseph into
Egypt speaks of how they handed the Lord over to the Gentiles.
But God was with him- God being meta Joseph is an
echo of 'Emmanuel', God with [meta] us (Mt. 1:23 cp. Jn. 3:2).
7:10 And
delivered him out of all his afflictions- The same word used of
how the brothers experienced "affliction" during the famine (:11), which
brought them eventually to repentance concerning Joseph. God likewise
works in our lives, so that we realize first-hand the results of our
actions against others. Those who shun and disfellowship and misuse others
so often end up having the same done to them; not because God operates
some measure-for-measure system of judgment, but rather because He seeks
our spiritual growth and sensitivity towards others. What the Jews did to
Jesus they were to experience themselves, in essence, in order that they
might identify with Him and realize what they had done to Him by feeling
it themselves- and repent. But sadly, the Jews of the first century did
not respond, even in the afflictions of the Jewish war. Yet Stephen
clearly saw Joseph as representative of himself; for he says that Joseph
had been given "wisdom", just as Stephen had been. Stephen's hope was that
his afflictions at the hands of the Jews would lead to their repentance,
and his closing words reflect that hope for them. He had clearly learned
deeply from his Lord's example on the cross.
And gave him favour and wisdom- The same words used by Luke
about the Lord (Lk. 2:52). Stephen is clearly presenting Joseph as a type
of Christ, and also seeing in Joseph a representation of himself, who was
likewise given grace and wisdom. Perhaps this was how Stephen's thought
process developed; seeing similarities between himself and Joseph, to whom
wisdom was also given, and who was also abused by his brethren; and then
realizing that Joseph was a type of the Lord's sufferings. And thereby
Stephen was led to the realization that the Lord in His sufferings and
death was truly his representative.
Before Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him
governor over Egypt- The Lord is described with the same word,
as "Governor" (Mt. 2:6). Joseph's exaltation was therefore typical of the
Lord's.
And all his house- A term used about God's house in Heb.
3:2,5, which the Lord Jesus is now "over". The multiple similarities in
phrasing between Hebrews and Stephen's speech have led some to suggest
Stephen as the author of Hebrews, especially as it appears to be addressed
to the Jerusalem ecclesia, or is perhaps a transcript of a sermon given
there.
7:11
Now there came a famine over all Egypt and Canaan,
and great affliction; and our fathers found no sustenance- Note
the focus on these two areas. The entire region was affected, according to
Genesis; for peoples from all surrounding nations [not just Canaan] came
to Egypt to buy corn. The intention may be to parallel Egypt and Canaan
because of the theme Stephen is developing, that there is no holy land or
place; and Israel is as Egypt. See on 7:6; 7:7 After that shall they
come out and serve Me in this place and 7:9 Into Egypt.
7:12
But when Jacob heard that there was grain in
Egypt, he sent our fathers the first time- The laboured
emphasis upon Joseph being recognized only the second time is to
demonstrate that the Lord Jesus would be recognized by the children of
Jacob / Israel the second time. We might be able to reason back from this
type and conclude that the first time the brothers came to Egypt, they
were intended to repent of their sin and recognize Joseph; but their lack
of repentance meant that their eyes were as it were closed from perceiving
him. The similarity with the Lord Jesus and Israel is of course acute.
7:13 And at the second time-
The Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth is hard to explicitly prove
from the Old Testament, without recourse to typology. Even Isaiah 53
describes the sufferings of Hezekiah, who was typical of Jesus. Thus
Stephen’s defence of his belief in the Messiahship of Jesus rests largely
on typology – e.g. the fact that Joseph/Jesus was rejected by his brethren
at first (Acts 7:13).
Joseph was made known to his brothers- Quoting Gen. 45:1 LXX.
And Joseph's race became manifest to Pharaoh- Joseph had first
been introduced to Pharaoh as a Hebrew (Gen. 41:12). But what the term
"Hebrew" meant to Egyptians isn't clear; it could mean just 'one from
beyond'. The "race" of Joseph presumably refers to the fact he was one of
Jacob's sons; and the Jacob family had already become famous as far as
Egypt. Yet Joseph had concealed his connection to that family. It may have
partly been because of shame at their behaviour, and their disadvertisment
for all the Godly principles which Joseph believed in. Or it may be that
because God had performed a psychological miracle on Joseph in making him
'forget his father's house' (Gen. 41:51), he simply did not identify
himself as from the Jacob family. Stephen may be making the point that
when Joseph, like the Lord Jesus, was recognized by his brethren, he was
at the same time recognized by the Gentile world likewise for who he
really was. And the same will be true at the latter day repentance of
Israel; Rom. 11:15 comes to mind: "For if the casting away of them is the
reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life
from the dead?".
Perhaps this continues Stephen's theme of demonstrating that the
fathers of Israel were themselves weak in faith. Two of the greatest types
of the Lord's mediatory work are Esther and Joseph. Esther was perhaps
ashamed to reveal that she was a Jewess because of her people's behaviour,
but given their desperate need she did reveal it in order to plead with
the King for their salvation. And only when Joseph really had to use his
influence to save his brethren did “Joseph's race become manifest unto
Pharaoh" (Acts 7:13 RV). Does the Lord experience the same sort of
embarrassment mixed with an urgent sense of our desperation, in His
present mediation for us?
7:14 And Joseph sent and called to himself Jacob his father and all
his extended family- Stephen has been developing Joseph as a type of
the Lord Jesus. He sees significance, therefore, in Joseph-Jesus
'sending', apostello, as it were, by the means of apostles; and
thus calling Jacob and his brothers to himself. Even in the last minutes
of his life, Stephen saw himself as part of this desperate appeal of
Joseph-Jesus to the children of Israel. We all have a great example in
Stephen's desire to 'call to Jesus' even his persecutors.
Seventy five people- The Hebrew text at Gen. 46:26; Ex. 1:5
and Dt. 10:22 has '70'. But the LXX has 75. The difference is because some
extra sons of Joseph's children Ephraim and Manasseh are recorded in the
LXX; they are listed in 1 Chron. 7:14-21: Ashriel, Machir, Zelophehad,
Peresh, sons of Manasseh; and Shuthelah, son of Ephraim. Joseph's sons
were all half Egyptian; his wife was the daughter of a pagan Egyptian
priest. Stephen may be reminding the Jews that their fierce claims to
ethnic purity were a nonsense; because the very early fathers of the
Jewish people were not ethnically pure, but mixed with Gentile blood from
the start. Another possibility is that we have 66 people recorded in Gen.
46:8-26; but if we include the wives of Jacob's sons, we have 75. I
calculate nine wives on the basis that Joseph's wife was already in Egypt;
and the wives of Judah and Simeon were dead. So we may have here an
encouragement to see the value of women, as equally counted amongst the
'founding fathers'. Or the 66 people may need to have the nine sons of
Joseph added to them; these are mentioned only in the LXX of Gen. 46:27
"And the sons of Joseph born in Egypt were nine souls".
7:15 And Jacob went down into
Egypt- Stephen is developing the point that holy land or sacred
space is not required for fellowship with God. Hence the Jewish obsession
with the temple space was inappropriate.
And he died, he and our fathers- Acts 2:5 has recorded that
there were large numbers of Jews from the diaspora who had come to live
permanently at Jerusalem in order to die there; and many of them had been
baptized. Stephen is making the point that the Jewish fathers themselves
died outside the territory of the land promised to Abraham. Clearly those
early Jewish Christians were still struggling with the idea that holy
space was no longer to be seen so literally, but was now centred in the
person and activity of the Lord Jesus.
7:16
And they were carried back to Shechem, and laid-
The focus is very much upon their bodies, because the final fulfilment of
the promises to Abraham involved a bodily resurrection of these men in
order to eternally inherit the land promised to them.
In the tomb that Abraham bought
for a price in silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem- The
following possibilities have been suggested: "(1) Abraham bought a cave
and field in which it stood (Genesis 23:17). (2) Abraham bought another
sepulchre, but it is not stated that he bought the field in which it stood
(Acts 7:15,16). (3) Years later, Jacob bought a parcel of ground (Joshua
24:32) or a parcel of a field (Genesis 33:19). This was, in all
probability, the very field in which Abraham's second sepulchre stood, as
this field once belonged to the same owners though they may have been
miles apart". We note that despite the shameful behaviour of Jacob’s sons
to Hamor, God brought about some degree of reconciliation. This gives hope
to all who feel stuck, perhaps by their own fault or that of their
brethren and relatives, in situations where reconciliation appears
impossible.
7:17
But as the time of the fulfilment of the promise
which God made to Abraham drew near, the people grew- The Greek
says simply “the time of the promise” drawing near- putting ‘the promise’
for ‘the fulfilment of the promise’, so sure are God’s promises of
fulfilment.
The promises to Abraham received their major primary fulfilment at the
Exodus. Seeing that their ultimate fulfilment will be at the second
coming, it follows that the deliverance of Israel from Egypt was typical
of this. Or we can read this as meaning that the Abrahamic promises had
their potential fulfilment at this time, involving a resurrection to
eternal inheritance of the land- but Israel failed to meet the
preconditions, and so their fulfilment was reinterpreted and rescheduled,
just as was to happen as a result of their rejection of the Lord Jesus.
And multiplied in Egypt- See on 6:1 Multiplying.
7:18 Until
there arose another king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph-
Just as the Jews did not know the Lord in crucifying Him (Lk. 23:34 s.w.).
7:19
The same dealt craftily with our race-
Again Stephen is seeking to bridge build with his audience by stressing
what they had in common; see on :2 Our father Abraham.
And ill-treated our fathers- In fulfilment of the prediction
mentioned in :6, where the same Greek word is translated "treat them
badly". Luke uses the word of how the Christians were persecuted by the
Jews (Acts 12:1; 14:2; 18:10). Again the Jews are being likened to the
pagan Egyptians.
Casting out their babies so that they might not live- As the
Jews cast out the 'baby' Christian converts from the synagogues. But the
command of Pharaoh was that the people themselves should cast their baby
boys into the Nile; the abuse of the Hebrews was in that they were made to
cast their own babies into the river; the Greek grammar here supports
this. See on :21.
7:20
At this time Moses was born, and was exceeding
fair; and he was nourished three months in his father's house-
The word is only used in Heb. 11:23, also about Moses. It means just that-
handsome, good. The idea that it means 'fair towards God' is speculation,
and at best interpretation rather than translation. It seems a wilful
twist of the Greek asteios , a word related to astu, a
city, and meaning literally 'urbane'. Twisting teos ['God'] into
asteios is just not permissible; and if we are to read 'fair to
God' then quite simply the Greek would be different. It seems to be the
equivalent of Ex. 2:2, where Jochebed noticed Moses was "a goodly child",
the Hebrew tob meaning no more than 'good' or 'nice' and with no
hint of 'to God'.
7:21 And when he was cast out- A related word to that used in
:19 "casting out their babies so that they might not live"; see note
there. The picture here presented is of Jochebed being technically
obedient to the commandment to cast her baby into the river; by gently
laying the child in an ark in the river. And it seems that no sooner had
she done so, committing the baby to God's care, along walked Pharaoh's
daughter and picked him up out of the water. Stephen describes the
‘putting out’ of Moses with the same word used in the LXX for what
happened to Israel (Ez. 16:5; Ex. 2:3 LXX). Moses is set up as example and
representative of his people Israel. Israel is likened in Ez. 16:5 to a
child rejected at birth, but miraculously found and cared for, and brought
up with every pampered blessing. Just as Moses was.
Pharaoh's daughter took him up- She called him 'Moses' because
she had drawn him out of the water (Ex. 2:10). But the Hebrew mashah,
'drawn out', is used in the sense of deliverance. And this is from whence
Mosheh ['Moses'; the same consonants are in both words]. Indeed,
the idea of being drawn out of waters means just that (Ps. 18:16). So we
are to imagine the baby about to drown, and the princess saving his life.
And nourished him as her own son- Moses would therefore have
been next in line to the throne; and he gave up all that for the sake of
trying to save a bunch of down and outs who didn't appreciate him anyway.
7:22 And Moses was instructed
in all the wisdom of the Egyptians- Moses and Daniel were in such
a similar situation; Daniel appears to have slipped away into the shadows
whenever he was promoted to greatness in Babylon, and surely he took
inspiration from Moses. There are similarities intended to be discerned
between our lives and those of others; and we are to respond. Paul says he
was "taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the
fathers" (Acts 22:3) by Gamaliel, receiving the highest wisdom possible in
the Jewish world; but he uses the same word as Stephen in Acts 7:22,
describing how Moses was "learned" in all the wisdom of Egypt.
Paul perceived his Jerusalem education as equivalent to that received by
Moses in Egypt; he saw the very doyen of Judaism as no better than pagan
Egypt. And Stephen [through his allusions] likewise had several times
suggested that Judaism was no better than paganism. This speech had a huge
effect on Paul, even though Stephen would not have noticed anything at the
time.
“The
wisdom” is Gk. sophia. The same word is used in the
construction which is translated "dealt craftily" in :19; the wisdom of
Egypt was to persecute the Hebrews.
And he was mighty in his words and works- The very phrase used
by Luke about the Lord (Lk. 24:19). If Moses was indeed handsome (see on
:20) and also mighty in words and works, he really would have been very
eligible as the next Pharaoh, being the Pharaoh's adopted grandson. Moses
really did despise so much worldly advantage for the sake of the far less
glamorous calling of God. "Mighty in his words and works" is very much the
language which has been used to describe Stephen himself in 6:8-10.
Stephen took comfort from the rejection of Moses, and saw himself in
Moses' experiences. This is how we too can make Biblical history a living
word to us. Indeed, the Biblical examples which Stephen selects include
Joseph who were rejected by the children of Israel despite his "wisdom"
(:10), and Moses who also had "wisdom" [of the Egyptians] but was rejected
by Israel- and wisdom was the great characteristic of Stephen (6:10). The
way God made Stephen's face to shine as if he were an Angel (6:15) is
effectively showing how God confirms Stephen in feeling as Moses; for the
Angel's glory shone off the face of Moses too (Ex. 34:29).
"I am not eloquent (mg. a man of words) ... I am slow of speech, and of
a slow tongue" (Ex. 4:10); this is how Moses felt he would be perceived,
although actually he was formally quite fluent when in the court of
Pharaoh (Acts 7:22). Paul would have remembered Stephen saying how Moses
was formerly full of worldly wisdom and "mighty in words". Paul
felt that he too had been through Moses' experience- once mighty in words
as the rising star of the Jewish world, but now like Moses he had left all
that behind in order to try to save a new Israel from Judaism and
paganism.
7:23
But when he was nearly forty years old-
It is worth trying to visualize the scene when Moses was “full
forty years old” (AV). It would make a fine movie. The Greek phrase could
refer to Moses’ birthday, and one is tempted to speculate that it had been
arranged that when Moses was 40, he would become Pharaoh. Heb. 11:24 says
that he refused and chose- the Greek tense implying a one off choice- to
suffer affliction with God’s people. It is tempting to imagine Moses at
the ceremony when he should have been declared as Pharaoh, the most
powerful man in his world… standing up and saying, to a suddenly hushed
audience, voice cracking with shame and stress and yet some sort of proud
relief that he was doing the right thing: “I, whom you know in Egyptian as
Meses, am Moshe, yes, Moshe the Jew; and I decline to be Pharaoh”. Imagine
his foster mother’s pain and anger. And then in the end, the wonderful
honour would have been given to another man, who became Pharaoh. Perhaps
he or his son was the one to whom Moses was to come, 40 years later. After
a nervous breakdown, stuttering, speaking with a thick accent, clearly
having forgotten Egyptian… walking through the mansions of glory, along
the corridors of power, to meet that man, to whom he had given the throne
40 years earlier.
It came into his heart- God clearly moved Moses to deliver
Israel. We see here yet another example of how God can operate directly
upon the hearts of men, giving ideas, motivation and even repentance.
To visit his brothers
the children of Israel- 'Visit' is a Hebraism for identifying
with, and also saving. It is through the Lord's representative sacrifice
that God ultimately visited and saved His people. Ex. 4:31 is clear that
God visited His people at this time; yet He was strongly
manifested in Moses, so that what Moses did and desired to do was a
manifestation of God. It is Luke who has recorded already how the work of
the Lord Jesus was God's visiting of His people (Lk. 1:68,78; 7:16); and
he later speaks of how God visited the Gentiles through the work of Peter
(Acts 15:14). So often, the words of Stephen are alluded to later by Paul,
who would have watched and listened with eagle intensity to Stephen's
words here- and on his conversion, sought to live in the spirit and
reasoning of the man he murdered. Paul uses Stephen's phrase here when he
speaks of his decision to go 'visit his brothers' where he had previously
preached and suffered (Acts 15:36). Such a decision was at great personal
risk; for he had faced death and persecution in those cities. His brave
desire to return was perhaps motivated by Moses' brave decision to visit
his brothers, at the cost of losing all things in his secular life and
endangering his life. But the thought of following Moses in this was first
stimulated by Stephen talking about it. And this is how our lives also
work out; we may hear a brother talking about a Bible character like
Moses, and it later inspires us in a radical, significant life decision.
"When Moses was grown, he went out unto his brethren, and
looked on their burdens... when he was full forty years old it
came into his heart to visit his brethren... by faith Moses, when he
was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's
daughter" (Ex. 2:11; Acts 7:23; Heb. 11:24). The implication seems to be
that Moses reached a certain point of maturity, of readiness, and then he
went to his brethren. " ...[Moses] refused to be called the son
of Pharaoh... choosing rather to suffer affliction with the
people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming
the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in
Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward" (Heb.
11:24-28). Moses could have been the next Pharaoh; according to Josephus,
he was the commander of the Egyptian army. But he walked away from the
possibility of being the riches man on earth, he "refused" it, because he
valued "the reproach of Christ" and the recompense of the Kingdom to be
greater riches. Yet what did he know about the sufferings of
Christ? Presumably he had worked out from the promises of the seed in Eden
and to the fathers that the future Saviour must be reproached and
rejected; and he saw that his own life experience could have a close
association with that of this unknown future Saviour who would surely
come. And therefore, it seems, Moses counted the honour and wonder of this
greater that the riches of Egypt. Both Paul and Moses rejected mammon for
things which are abstract and intellectual (in the strict sense): the
excellency of the understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ and His
cross, and the Kingdom this would enable. Living when we do, with perhaps
a greater knowledge of the Lord's victory and excellency, our motivation
ought to be even stronger.
7:24
And seeing one of them
suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed-
It was God who delivered Israel from their Egyptian oppressors (1 Sam.
10:18); but He did so through Moses. Yet Israel would only be oppressed by
Gentiles if they were disobedient to the covenant (Dt. 28:29,33, and the
word is often used about their punishments at Gentile hands during the
period of the judges). But despite that, the God of all grace through
Moses avenged His people who were justly suffering for their sins. Stephen
is seeking to remove from Israel any sense of national pride at their
Exodus from Egypt, and instead see it as a parade example of God's pure
grace through the raising up of a Saviour in Moses, who looked ahead to
Messiah. And yet the profound truth was that it was through the
'oppression' of that Messianic Suffering Servant on the cross that
Israel's salvation would be enabled (Is. 53:7). And no wonder then that
the brief summary of the Gospel in Acts 10:38 uses the word to summarize
the work of the Lord Jesus as delivering the oppressed. Stephen, or the
Lord speaking through Stephen, was appealing to the audience on all
levels. There were many Rabbinic-trained minds there like Saul's, who
thought constantly on the level of Scriptural allusion, type and antitype.
And these words of Stephen, spoken in perhaps his last minutes of mortal
life, succeeded in converting at least Saul.
Striking the Egyptian- The same word used of how the Jews
'smote' the Lord with death (Mt. 26:31). The point is being developed, as
with the language of 'oppression', that it was through the Lord's smiting
that He smote the oppressors of His people.
7:25 And he supposed that his
brothers understood- "Supposed" translates nomizo,
connected to the noun nomos, 'law'. The Law of Moses ought to
have brought Israel to perceive the Lord Jesus as their Saviour; but for
whatever reason, they failed to make that connection.
That God by his hand
was giving them deliverance- Moses' hand. But God had told
Moses at the bush: "I will stretch out My hand, and smite
Egypt...." . Moses had yet to learn the meaning of God manifestation
through men; Stephen is bringing out the weakness of the fathers, even
Moses.
But they understood not- Another phrase of Stephen's that
stuck in Paul's mind to the end of his days; for on arrival in Rome he
lamented that the Jews "understood not" (Acts 28:26 s.w.). Stephen's
speech is a superb example of powerful preaching that left ideas and words
in the minds of his hearers that remained for decades afterwards. The Lord
had many times lamented that Israel "understood not"; we can therefore
infer that Israel could have accepted Moses' deliverance the first time.
But they thrust him away from them, and there was a 40 year hiatus in the
plan of Israel's redemption. This was reflected in Israel's rejection of
the Lord Jesus and then the possibility arising around AD70 for them to
accept Him again. It seems from the New Testament that the apostles
clearly hoped for that; but again they refused the possibility, and
another, longer hiatus has been interposed.
7:26
And the following day he appeared to two of them
- God sent Moses to be their saviour, pointing forward to
His sending of the Lord Jesus to redeem us. Moses came to Israel and
"shewed (Greek 'optomai') himself" to them (Acts 7:26). Yet
'optomai' really means to gaze at, to watch a spectacle. He came to
his people, and gazed at them as they fought among themselves, spiritually
and emotionally destroyed by the oppression of Egypt. He invited them to
likewise gaze upon him as their saviour. This surely prefigures our Lord's
consideration of our sinful state. As he grew up in Nazareth he would have
thought on this a lot. The same word for “appeared” is used of the Lord's
appearances after His resurrection, specifically to the 'two' on the road
to Emmaus. Luke has used the word in Acts 1:3 of how the Lord 'appeared'
after His resurrection for 40 days. And it is the same word used of how
the risen Lord appeared to Saul soon afterwards (Acts 9:17; 26:16; 1 Cor.
15:8). Surely Saul made the connection.
As they were fighting- 'Striving'. The same word is used of
how the Jews strove amongst themselves over the issue of Jesus as Messiah
(Jn. 6:52). The same striving was going on within the consciences of men
like Saul and Gamaliel who were listening to Stephen.
And tried to reconcile them- Paul grasped the point, for in
his later letters he writes much of how the Lord's work and the outcome of
His death was fundamentally the ministry of reconciliation between
persons. To glorify, create and perpetuate division between brethren is to
miss the point of the Lord's work.
Saying, Gentlemen, you are brothers- Literally, 'men'. They
were not to be mere men in their relationship with each other, they were
to remember that they were brothers and act accordingly. See on :28.
Several times Stephen has appealed to the fact that he and the Jews were
brothers, with common ancestry; see on 7:2 Our father Abraham.
But just as the point was lost on Israel at the time of Moses, so it was
in Stephen's day; for they stoned him all the same.
Why do you injure each other?- The same word has just been
used of how the Egyptian injured the Israelite (s.w. "suffer wrong"). By
oppressing and injuring our brethren, we are acting as Egypt. This was a
finely reasoned appeal to Stephen's brethren not to treat him likewise.
And given the kind of minds listening to him, continually accustomed to
such a way of reasoning from Biblical words and precedents, the appeal
would have struck home. Especially with Saul.
7:27
But he that did his neighbour wrong-
The same word as "injure" in :26; see note there.
Thrust him away- This incident was typical of Israel's
attitude to Moses in the wilderness years (:39 s.w.). And again, the
listening, angry Paul was deeply impressed by the logic. He got the point,
that Moses was a type of the Lord Jesus; and he uses the same word in
saying that Israel had thrust away the Gospel of Christ (Acts 13:46),
although he also marvels at how although they had done this, God had not
'thrust away' His people Israel (Rom. 11:1,2). God has not treated them as
they treated Him through their rejection of Moses and Jesus, who
manifested Him.
Saying, Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?- Again there
was the question of authority. This was a big issue with the Jews of the
first century in their criticisms of both the Lord and His preachers.
Stephen is demonstrating that it was this concern with authority which had
led Israel to initially reject Moses. The Lord Jesus of course is
described with the same words, as the ultimate ruler (Rev. 1:5) and judge.
Luke clearly connects with these words by being the only evangelist to
record the Lord's comment: "Who made me a judge or a divider over you?"
(Lk. 12:14). The answer was, 'God'. The parallels were clearly being
developed by Stephen between Moses and the Lord Jesus, and they would not
have been lost upon his audience.
7:28 Would you kill me- Moses had made no threat at all. He
had come to save his brethren, not kill them. Later, Israel liked to
suppose that Moses and God Himself were some kind of psychopaths who had
led them out of Egypt intentionally to murder them in the desert. Legion
feared the Lord had come to torment rather than save him (Mt. 8:29). The
disciples feared that the Lord didn't care that they perished in the storm
(Mk. 4:38). Here we have a psychological phenomenon; the saviour is feared
to be a destroyer by those he seeks to save. This has been observed from
various angles in many studies and observations. The reason is that the
group to be saved do not believe that the saviour can save them; and they
justify that disbelief by thinking that actually, they are correct in
disbelieving him- because actually, he is a deceiver and wishes to kill
them. This is why strong opposites of reaction are produced by the
challenge to faith which there is in the person of Jesus and in the
Gospel. It is why messengers of that Gospel and of Jesus are so strongly
slandered by those who disbelieve that Gospel. It is why nobody can stand
on some passive middle ground when they encounter the Lord. Here too is
the explanation for Saul's manic reaction against the Lord, and then such
a strong reaction the other way. The very way we are wired means that we
respond to salvation either in trust, or in strong reaction the other way.
In our witnessing to men and women, we often meet the claim that folks are
undecided or indifferent. However politely stated, that is in fact an
excuse for unbelief.
As you killed the Egyptian yesterday?- The Hebrew assumed that
Moses was going to treat him too as he would an Egyptian. The Hebrew had
failed to realize the unique identity of himself as a Hebrew and not as a
mere man. See on :26 Gentlemen, you are brothers.
7:29 And Moses fled at this
saying
and went to live in the land of Midian-
Ex. 2:14 says that "Moses was afraid, and said, Surely this thing is
known". But Heb. 11:27 gives a different perspective: "By faith he forsook
Egypt, not fearing the anger of the king. For he endured...". See on Heb.
11:27. It seems that Moses had at best a mixture of motives, or motives
that changed over time; yet God sees through his human fear, and discerns
an element of calm faith within Moses as he left Egypt. Moses is described
as having "endurance" at the time he fled from Egypt (Heb. 11:27), even
though in the short term his faith failed him at the time and he fled in
fear (Ex. 2:14,15). Yet God counted him as having that basic ability to
endure, even to endure through his own failure and weakness. This is
what God looks at, rather than our day-to-day acts of sin and
righteousness. Stephen emphasizes the weakness of Moses to seek to lead
his audience away from national pride and an idolizing of Moses; he wished
them to see the prophet greater than Moses, Jesus the Messiah, as indeed
greater than Moses. In Judaism, there was and still is a tendency to
perceive Moses as the acme of spirituality, far greater than Messiah.
Where he begat two sons- Neither of whom did he circumcise; and
their mother was a non-Israelite. Such a person would have been excluded
from the synagogues by Moses' spiritual descendants. Again, Stephen is
portraying the weaker side of Moses in order to lead his listeners to a
position where they sought the greater than Moses.
7:30 And when forty years were fulfilled- The language of
'fulfilment' suggests that God planned the 40 years ahead of time. The
suggestion seems to be that God gave them this period as a punishment- for
not accepting Moses the first time. Stephen and the early apostles appear
to have had the idea that likewise, a 40 year period was being given to
Israel to repent after their rejection of the Lord. But even when that was
fulfilled, they still refused to repent. The idea of years being fulfilled
is using the words used in the LXX for the 70 years judgment upon Judah
which was fulfilled (2 Chron. 36:21,22; Jer. 25:12). This confirms us in
understanding this period as a judgment upon Israel; their sufferings in
Egypt were prolonged by their refusal to accept Moses' deliverance.
An angel appeared to him
in the wilderness of
Mount Sinai- The point being once more that sacred space is not only
in the temple nor only in the territory of the land of Israel. The
wilderness where Moses kept sheep for 40 years was also the same area
where he shepherded Israel for the next 40 years. 40 years is a long time;
during it, Moses went from being a handsome young man, next in line for
the throne, eloquent in words and works... to a man broken by 40 years of
manual work in the cruel desert, stuttering, having forgotten Egyptian,
needing a spokesman. And then, he was ready for God to use as the greatest
leader of His people apart from the Lord. Monotonous experience over
decades can be used by the Father to prepare us for another stage of life;
whilst we cannot attach specific meaning to event at the time it happens,
we can rest assured that there is meaning to event, even if it takes 40
years to realize it.
In a flame of fire- The appearance of the Spirit as flames of
fire on the heads of the apostles thereby connected them to Moses; and the
Jewish opposition to them made those learned religious men no better than
the Egyptians.
In a bush- It is Luke who uses this word in recording how the
Lord made the point that figs and grapes, the classic symbols of Israel
under blessing, do not come from such thorny bushes (Lk. 6:44). But it was
there, in that context and negative associations, that Yahweh revealed
Himself as Israel's saviour through Moses. And He had done the same in the
Lord Jesus whom Israel now likewise despised.
7:31
And when Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight;
and as he drew near to observe- “Wondered” translates a Greek
word which is often used in a negative sense concerning people lacking
faith and insight when they should have had it. Another reference to Moses
in weakness, preparing the way for presenting Jesus as Messiah as the
greater than Moses.
There came the voice of the Lord- Actually of an Angel (:30).
But the Angel was spoken of as if it were God, in that it was speaking
God's voice. In this lies the basis for a correct understanding of the
highly exalted nature of the Lord Jesus; not God Himself in a Trinitarian
sense, but the supreme manifestation of Him.
7:32 I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac
and of Jacob- The Angel spoke those words; and it would be fair to
say that in reality, the patriarchs conceived of God in terms of His
Angel. Jacob is quite clear about this in Gen. 48:15,16.
And Moses trembled and dared not look- This is in intentional
contrast to the way in which he later spoke face to face with the Angel,
as a man speaks with his friend (Ex. 33:11); and with how he had the
ambition to ask to see God's own glory (Ex. 33:20). The point is that
Moses grew spiritually in closeness to the Angel who manifested the
Father. And it was such growth in relation to the Lord Jesus which Stephen
was urging. See on :34 Come.
7:33 And the Lord said to him,
Take off the shoes from your feet- Stephen says that this
request came after God had introduced Himself as the God of
Abraham etc. (:32). But the order is apparently different in Ex. 3:5,6:
"Take your sandals off from your feet, for the place you are standing on
is holy ground.
Moreover he said, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob". It could be that the "he said" is to be
understood as 'He had said'. But another alternative is that
Stephen was inspired to understand that God introduced Himself twice to
Moses; and the first time Moses didn't comprehend it. This would fit with
Stephen's point that Joseph was made known to his brethren the second
time; and Moses likewise was accepted by Israel the second time he
came to them. And now Stephen would be saying that Moses himself only
grasped the manifestation of God in the Angel at the second time. All this
of course was prodding the Jewish conscience about their rejection of
their Messiah the first time; but at His second appearing, the 'second
time'... they will accept Him.
For the place upon which you stand is holy ground- Literally,
in the Greek, 'the holy land', the phrase beloved of Jews to describe
Israel. Stephen was speaking in the context of arguing that the temple was
no longer required for worship, house meetings were just as valid; and so
he makes the point that a spot of scrubland in the Sinai desert was just
as much the holy land as the territory of Palestine and the temple mount
itself.
7:34
I have surely seen the affliction of My people
that is in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to
deliver them; and now- Their groaning was heard by God as a
prayer; He sees situations as prayer. Otherwise, if prayer is simply
words, then those who are better able to verbalize would have more
powerful prayers. But ability to verbalize isn't the necessary thing in
order for God to hear prayer.
Come,
I will send you into
Egypt- Gk. 'come here'. The Angel in the bush invited Moses to
come closer to Him, whereas Moses "dared not look" (:32). It was his own
intimacy to God which would be the basis of Israel's salvation; hence the
paradox of "Come [here], I will send you [away] into Egypt". As noted on
:32 Moses trembled and dared not look, Moses grew in relationship
and intimacy with that Angel, just as he grew in ability to save Israel.
7:35 This Moses- Israel hated him, they thrust him from them
(Acts 7:39); due to their provocation he failed to enter the land. He had
done so much for them, yet they bitterly rejected him- "this Moses", as
they called him (Ex. 32:1,23 cp. Acts 7:35). But when God wanted to
destroy them and make of Moses a great nation, he pleaded for them with
such intensity that he achieved what few prayerful men have: a change (not
just a delay in outworking) in God's categorically stated intention.
Whom they refused,
saying: Who made you a ruler and a judge?- The same
word used of Israel's denial or refusing of the Lord Jesus (Acts 3:13,14).
The loneliness of Moses as a type of Christ in showing this kind of love
must surely represent that of our Lord. They went to a height which was
generally beyond the appreciation of the men among whom they lived. The
Spirit seems to highlight the loneliness of Moses by saying that at the
same time as Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's
daughter, Israel refused him (the same Greek word is used; Heb.
11:24; Acts 7:35). He was rejected by both the world and God's people: for
40 long years. As Israel envied Moses for spiritual reasons (Ps. 106:16;
Acts 7:9), so they did Christ (Mt. 27:18), after the pattern of the
brothers' spiritual envy of Joseph (Gen. 37:11). Spiritual envy leading to
persecution is quite a common feature in Biblical history (Job, Jeremiah,
Paul...). And it isn't absent from the Christian experience either.
Him God sent to be both a ruler and a deliverer,
by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in
the bush- "Ruler and judge" becomes "ruler and deliverer". God
fundamentally and essentially wishes to deliver / save rather than to
judge. Although Israel rejected Moses as their ruler and deliverer, "the
same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer". They didn't
want to be saved from Egypt through Moses, and yet God did save them from
Egypt through Moses. Israel at that time were exactly like us; while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us, we were redeemed in prospect from a
world we didn't want to leave. We were saved- and are saved- almost in
spite of ourselves. That we were predestined to such great salvation is
one of redemption's finest mysteries.
7:36 This man led them out-
The grammar here might suggest that the completed 'leading out' was after
the 40 years journey, and the AV reflects that. Our path in spiritual life
is likewise a leading of us out of Egypt; it is not all achieved at the
moment of crossing the Red Sea / baptism. The lead up to the Red Sea
crossing was just as much a part of the leading out process. This is why
separation from the world and unto the things of the Kingdom is an
essential part of our salvation process. And it's why that process will
involve progressive disillusion and bad experience with the world.
"He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs... in
the wilderness forty years" (AV); yet Ex.12:41; 33:1 say that the bringing
out of Israel was at the Red Sea. These two 'bringings out' of Egypt (the
flesh) are experienced by us, firstly at baptism, and secondly in actually
entering the Kingdom at the second coming. Our bringing out from the
Kingdom of darkness into the sphere of God's rulership only occurs in
prospect at baptism and must be confirmed at the end of our wilderness
wandering.
Having done wonders and signs in Egypt
and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years- This
confirms that the 'leading out' was both from Egypt and at the end of the
wilderness journeys. The wonders done at the exodus were in essence done
throughout the 40 years. Thus the cloud in which they were baptized at the
Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1) continued with them for 40 years. Their baptism in
this sense was ongoing, and this idea is repeated in the discourse on
baptism in Romans 6.
7:37 This is the Moses who said to the children of Israel-
Implying 'Moses would have believed in Jesus as Messiah if he were here
today'.
A prophet like me shall God raise up to you from
among your brothers - A clear statement of the Lord's humanity.
As the Passover lamb had to be taken out from among the flock, so the
Messiah was taken out from amongst His brothers. And Stephen has just
stressed that Moses was a man ("This man...", :36). Messiah was to like
him. Yet there was an initial possible fulfilment of this prophecy in
Aaron, whom Moses was told would be his prophet (Ex. 7:1), and who was
literally one of Moses' brothers. Aaron could have been the Messiah
figure, but failed. Again we are introduced to the idea of conditional
prophecy; which was highly relevant to Israel at that time. If they
accepted Jesus as Messiah, then prophecies would be fulfilled- but if they
did not, then those prophecies would have another and more difficult [for
Israel] outworking.
7:38 This is he that was in
the congregation in the wilderness- The ecclesia, the church. We
find Moses as a type of Christ also presented as representative of Israel,
and therefore able to completely sympathise with them in their physical
afflictions and spiritual weaknesses. Thus the Spirit says (in the context
of presenting Moses as a type of Christ) that Moses was "in (not
"with") the ecclesia in the wilderness", stressing the way in which he was
in their midst rather than distanced from them. The Lord Jesus is
portrayed in Acts as very much "in" the church, active and present just as
much as Moses was. Paul's later reasoning in 1 Corinthians 10 about the
church in the wilderness is yet another example of how the reasoning of
Stephen remained with him over the years, and he developed the ideas.
With the angel- Acts 7:38 (especially the Diaglott
translation) speaks as if the Angel was physically present with Moses on
the journey, and was as much in the congregation as Moses was: "He (Moses)
was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel which spake to him in
the Mount Sina and with our fathers". In passing, this implies that it was
the same Angel (Michael) who gave the promises to Abraham, who gave the
Law, and who went with them through the wilderness. Truly He is the Angel
connected with Israel! Stephen's point was that like the Angel in the
wilderness, the Lord Jesus was no less 'in' the early church although
mostly invisible.
That spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers- But
their 'fathers' didn't want the Angel to speak with them directly, and
wanted Moses alone to meet God on Sinai. This was the stock they were
descended from; and it was no pedigree to be proud of. Stephen is implying
that the descendants of those 'fathers' were likewise not willing to
listen to the voice of God; or as Hebrews puts it, they turned away from
Him who spoke from Heaven (Heb. 12:25- Hebrews might have been written by
Stephen).
Who received living words to give to us-
God's word is unlike any human word; it has the ability to speak to
subsequent generations directly in their context. In this sense, the words
given to Moses were also given to Stephen's generation, and spoke to them
of Jesus. Just as the record of Jacob's wrestling with the Angel is God
speaking to us today (Hos. 12:4). Moses trembled and Sinai shook and the
people fled when they heard God's word. "God's voice was heard at Sinai:
the same voice spoke in the Psalmist's words. But the appeal stands
written in Scripture and therefore Paul can say that "Today" is a time
with limits, but it was yet "today" when the Hebrews was written and Paul
repeats the word of the Psalmist as God's voice to the Hebrews of his day.
It is significant that Paul immediately adds that "the word of God is
living and powerful". The words he quoted were no dead message but God's
living voice… The exhortation "My son, despise not the chastening of the
Lord" was God speaking "unto you", says Paul to the Hebrews. Is it less so
to sons of any generation?" [John Carter, Delight In God's Law,
pp. 232,233]. Heb. 12:5 alludes to this idea of a living word by speaking
of an Old Testament passage as 'reasoning' (R.V.) with us. The Lord Jesus
spoke of how the spiritual man is to live by every word which proceeds
(present tense) from the mouth of God (Mt. 4:4); as if He perceived God's
words written in the book of Deuteronomy to be "proceeding" from God's
very mouth in an ongoing sense. Moses speaks of how God says to each dying
man "Return, you children of men" (Ps. 90:3)- as if Moses understood to
speak the words of Gen. 3:19 to every man who dies. Likewise the Lord
spoke as if the Jews of His day ought to be hearing Moses and the
prophets speaking to them in urgent warning (Lk. 16:31); yet despite
studying their words syllable by syllable, the Jews didn't in fact
perceive it was a living word speaking to them directly and urgently.
Abel, through the account of him in Scripture, "is yet spoken of" (Heb.
11:4 AVmg.). Isaiah was prophesying directly to the hypocrites of the
first century, according to the Lord in Mk. 7:6 RV. There is an active
quality to the words we read on the pages of our Bibles. The passage in
the scrolls that said "I am the God of Abraham" was "spoken unto you
by God”, Jesus told first century Israel (Mt. 22:31). Note in passing how
demanding He was- expecting them to figure from that statement and usage
of the present tense that God considered Abraham effectively still alive,
although he was dead, and would therefore resurrect him. Although God
spoke to Moses alone in the mount, Moses stresses that actually God "spake
unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire". The word of
God to His scribes really is, to the same gripping, terrifying degree, His
direct word to us (Dt. 4:36; 5:45; 10:4). This explains why David
repeatedly refers to the miracle at the Red Sea as if this had affected
him personally, to the extent that he could ecstatically rejoice because
of it. When Dt. 11:4 speaks of how "the Lord has destroyed [the Egyptians]
unto this day", it sounds as if we are to understand each victory and
achievement of God as somehow ongoing right down to our own day and our
own lives and experience. Thus Ps. 114:5,6 RV describes the Red Sea as
even now fleeing before God’s people. And thus because of the records of
God's past activities, we should be motivated in our decisions now.
7:39 Our fathers would not be obedient to him- The early
church was "obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7 s.w.). Again Stephen is
demonstrating the weakness of 'our fathers', whom the Jews were so proud
of.
But thrust him from them and turned back in their hearts to Egypt-
Stephen stresses the way in which Moses was rejected by Israel as a type
of Christ. At age 40, Moses was "thrust away" by one of the Hebrews; and
on the wilderness journey the Jews "thrust him from them, and in their
hearts turned back again into Egypt" (Acts 7:27,35,39). This suggests that
there was far more antagonism between Moses and Israel than we gather from
the Old Testament record- after the pattern of Israel's treatment of
Jesus. It would seem from Acts 7:39 that after the golden calf incident,
the majority of Israel cold shouldered Moses; their hearts, their
thinking, was back in Egypt, reminiscing about Egyptian food... Once the
point sank in that they were not going to enter the land, these feelings
must have turned into bitter resentment. They were probably unaware of how
Moses had been willing to offer his eternal destiny for their salvation;
they would not have entered into the intensity of Moses' prayers for their
salvation. The record seems to place Moses and "the people" in
juxtaposition around 100 times (e.g. Ex. 15:24; 17:2,3; 32:1 NIV; Num.
16:41 NIV; 20:2,3; 21:5). They accused Moses of being a cruel cult leader,
bent on leading them out into the desert to kill them and steal their
wealth from them (Num. 16:13,14)- when in fact Moses was delivering them
from the house of bondage, and was willing to lay down his own salvation
for theirs. The way Moses submerged his own pain is superb; both of their
rejection of him and of God's rejection of him from entering the Kingdom.
“Turned
back” suggests an anti 'conversion', which is how the word is
elsewhere translated. We meet the word again in :42, where in response to
this turning back, God in response likewise turned back from Israel. There
is a mutuality in response between God and man, and yet overarching that
there is also His grace and continued enthusiasm to save even those who
turn away from His offer.
7:40 Saying unto Aaron- Their desire for the golden calf was
part of their mental return to Egypt; it was surely an Egyptian idol
deity.
Make us gods- They made a singular calf, but understood it as
a plurality; a many-in-one god. This is classic paganism, and is reflected
in the false doctrine of the Trinity to this day.
That shall go before us- The constant, visible presence of the
cloud and fire leading them failed to register. Visible miracles seem to
have little effect in bringing people to spirituality. They wanted to be
led back to Egypt and needed a leader through the trackless waste to get
back there. Yet they had leadership going before them through the desert
towards the promised land. Clearly, people choose a form of leadership
which they perceive will lead them to where they themselves want to go. If
the Bible and the living word of the Lord Jesus are our chosen guides,
then we are to follow wherever they lead, rather than choosing leadership
which takes us where we ourselves would wish to go in the short term. So
many struggles over church leadership today come simply back to this.
As for this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt, we do not
know what has become of him- Their concern was that the trackless
desert required a guide. They wilfully chose to ignore the fire and cloud
leading them, and chose instead to focus on the man who was their leader.
This happens today; people excuse not following God's word and Spirit
direction because of their issues with the human leadership. Luke may be
making a connection with the way he uses the same word for 'led out' in
speaking of how after His resurrection, the Lord led His people as far as
Bethany and then ascended to Heaven, becoming their invisible leader (Lk.
24:50).
7:41 And they made a calf in
those days- The days Moses was in the mount.
And brought a sacrifice to the idol and rejoiced
in the works of their hands- A phrase used about idols several
times; :43 stresses that they "made" the idols. Trust in our own works is
therefore a form of idolatry; Stephen is saying that although the Jews
were strictly against idols, their justification by works was a form of
idolatry, just as it can be today. The doing of works becomes an addiction
and a form of justification rather than simple faith in Christ. They
"rejoiced" in what they had made, whereas earlier at the Exodus they had
rejoiced in God's grace of salvation towards them.
7:42 But God turned and gave
them up to serve the host of heaven- On their journey to Canaan,
the Israelites worshipped idols. Because of this, "God turned, and gave
them up (over) to worship the host of heaven... I gave them up to the
hardness of their hearts" (Acts 7:42; Ps. 81:12 AVmg.). God reached a
stage where He actually encouraged Israel to worship idols; He confirmed
them in their rejection of Him. And throughout their history, He
encouraged them in their idolatry (Ez. 20:39; Am. 4:4). God will confirm
us today in whichever way we chose to go. See on :39 Turned back.
“Gave
them up to serve” implies that God held them back from
worshipping the idols they had carried with them. But then He withdrew
this psychological restraint. This is evidence enough that God is able to
work in the hearts of men in order to hold them back from sinning, as He
did even with gentile Abimelech. This is one of the many functions of His
Holy Spirit; their behaviour is specifically described in :51 as resisting
the Holy Spirit.
As it is written in the book of the prophets: Did
you offer to me slain beasts and sacrifices for forty years in the
wilderness, O house of Israel?- Stephen pointed out,
by the inflection which he gave to his OT quotations, that Israel's
service of God was meaningless because at the same time they worshipped
their idols: "Have you offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices
by the space of forty years in the wilderness?". This was a rhetorical
question. They offered the sacrifices, but actually they didn't. And what
is the difference between "slain beasts" and “sacrifices"? Aren't
sacrifices only slain beasts? The point is that the animals they gave were
only slain beasts; nothing more, not real offerings, not real, acceptable
sacrifice. "They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of mine offerings, and
eat it; but the Lord accepteth it not" (Hos. 8:13). And likewise we can
dress up our devotions with the appearance of real sacrifice when there is
nothing there at all.
7:43 You took up the
tabernacle of Moloch- Ezekiel 20 describes how Israel took the
idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea; indeed, they lugged a whole
pagan tabernacle system with them through the wilderness, in addition to
the true tabernacle (:43,44). This of course is a warning to us who were
as it were baptized also at the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1). Are we carrying two
tabernacle systems with us [or more] on our wilderness journey?
And the star of the god Remphan, figures which you
made to worship- See on :41 The works of their hands.
These were in contrast to the "figure" of the tabernacle (:44). It was an
anti-tabernacle which they carried, just as all false religion is a fake
imitation of the true and just as the anti-Christ is not a person so much
against Christ (although he is that), but a fake imitation of Him.
And I will carry you away- As they had carried their idols.
There is a mutuality between God and man in how God responds to human sin.
Beyond Babylon- Paul’s relationship with Stephen becomes even
more acute when we reflect upon how Stephen says that Israel were taken
into judgment to Babylon. He is quoting here from Amos 5:26,
which in both the LXX and Masoretic text says that Israel were to go “to
Damascus”. Why does Stephen purposefully change “Damascus” to “Babylon”?
Was it not because he knew there were many Christians in Damascus, and he
didn’t want to speak of ‘going to Damascus’ as a figure for condemnation?
And yet straight afterwards we are reading that Saul ‘went to
Damascus’ to persecute and kill the Christians there. It’s as if Saul
was so infuriated by Stephen’s subtle change that he wanted to prove him
wrong; he would ‘go to Damascus’ and not be condemned, rather he would
condemn the Christians there, and make it their place of
judgment. This suggestion may seem farfetched. But we have to remember the
Pharisaic way of reasoning and thinking. Every phrase of Scripture was so
valuable to them, and major life decisions would be made over one nuance
of the text or interpretation of it. No wonder that in later life, Paul
alludes to his dear friend Stephen so much. What a joy it will be to see
them meet up in the Kingdom.
7:44 Our fathers had the
tabernacle of the testimony in
the wilderness, even as He who spoke to Moses- The contrast is
with the tabernacle of Moloch which they also carried with them. The
"testimony" implies an evidence, a witness. There was no such witness in
the false tabernacle. This is the word commonly used for the testimony or
witness of the early preachers (Acts 4:33 and often in Paul's letters).
This testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus was ignored by the
Jews of Stephen's day just as Israel in the wilderness preferred the
witness of Moloch's tabernacle which was in fact not a witness at all, for
it was a silent assembly of materials and nothing more. The hint was that
this was all the Jerusalem temple now amounted to, for the Lord had left
that house desolate; the glory had departed from it. To draw a parallel
between the Jerusalem temple and the tabernacle of Moloch was a radical
thing to do. No wonder Saul and his colleagues were cut to the heart and
beside themselves with anger.
Appointed- The tabernacle of Moloch was not "appointed" by
God. Saul was paying attention to every word; for the Lord then appeared
to him and "appointed" him to do the work of His
tabernacle (Acts 22:10 s.w.). And by doing so the Lord was inviting Paul
[and all of us] to see Moses not as an icon to be worshipped from a
respectful distance, but as a realistic pattern for our own path.
That he should make it
according to the figure that he had seen- See on :43
Figures which you made.
7:45 Which
also our fathers, in their turn, brought into the land with Joshua-
Joshua is the same Hebrew word as 'Jesus'. Joshua-Jesus and the "fathers"
brought in the tabernacle into the place previously possessed by Gentiles.
I suggest that the tabernacle now referred to people, God's dwelling
place. The Lord used the same word, so Luke alone records, of how those
previously excluded from the temple were to be 'brought in' by Him and His
servants (Lk. 14:21). The 'fathers' therefore equate with the servants of
Jesus; the tabernacle is the new system of worship. Paul was later accused
of bringing in Gentiles to the temple (Acts 21:28,29 s.w.). As the
"fathers" along with Joshua-Jesus brought the tabernacle into the holy
space of the land of Israel, so the early Jewish Christians along with the
active Lord Jesus were to bring Gentile converts into the new holy space-
not a literal space, but the temple of God's invisible church and
spiritual temple. It was all just too much for the listening Judaists.
That those fishermen believers-in-Jesus could be equivalent to the
"fathers", that the crucified Jesus was as the historical Joshua, that the
Gentiles were as the ark, that holy space no longer counted... it was all
too much. The intensity and depth of Stephen's allusions were increasing
as he progressed in his apparently innocent recounting of Israel's
history. And when men are spiritually and intellectually cornered, they
descend to personal attacks, in this case to the extent of throwing Roman
law to the winds and picking up stones to stone Stephen to death with.
When they received possession of the
nations that God thrust out before the presence of our fathers-
Stephen has just drawn a parallel between the early Jewish Christian
preachers, many of them illiterate manual workers, and the "fathers" at
the time of Joshua-Jesus. And now he says that the Gentiles were cast out
before them; the implication was that the Judaist elders were no better
than the Gentile inhabitants of Canaan, who were now being cast out of the
holy space. The Lord had literally cast out such persons from the holy
space of the temple. Saul's conscience was badly goaded at this point; but
the point was not lost on him. For in the years of his repentance, he
wrote of how just as Gentile Hagar was "cast out", so Judaism had been
cast out from God's true family (Gal. 4:30).
To the days of David- At first blush, a strange detail to add;
that the process of casting out the Gentile tribes from the land was only
completed by David, many generations later. The "fathers" hadn't done the
job; they were not the peerless elders Judaism liked to imagine. And it
was David, a clear type of Messiah, whose "son" was to be Messiah, who
actually completed the job. The Lord Jesus was likewise doing the same-
completing the job of casting the Judaists out of God's holy space because
He had redefined that holy space.
7:46 Who found favour in the sight of God- The grace he found
was in that he was given the honour of being the 'father' of Messiah; the
Messianic promises of 2 Sam. 7:12-14 were given to David. Luke forces the
point home by using the very same words as to how Mary "found favour in
the sight of God" (Lk. 1:30), and was chosen to be the woman through whom
the Messianic promise to David came true.
And asked to find a habitation for the God of Jacob- David's
desire to "find" a temple for God was matched by how he "found" (s.w.)
grace with God. As we learn in 2 Sam. 7, God turned around that desire to
'find' something for Him by saying that He would 'find' something for
David, namely the Son of God, the Jewish Messiah, being directly a "son of
David". Stephen is setting up the position that all the argument about the
temple as holy place was deeply and Biblically misplaced; because God
wanted to give Israel His Son, rather than have a temple. And the Judaists
were back in the initially mistaken mindset of David, focusing on the
physical temple rather than the spiritual house centred in God's Son, the
true temple. Stephen clearly read negatively Solomon's insistence on
building a physical temple.
7:47 But it was Solomon who built Him a house- Stephen was
accused by the Jews of blaspheming the temple. In reply, he gives a potted
history of Israel, emphasizing how the faithful were constantly on the
move rather than being settled in one physical place. He was subtly
digging at the Jewish insistence that the temple was where God lived. In
this context, he refers to Solomon's building of the temple in a negative
light. He says that David tried to find a tabernacle for God, "But Solomon
built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth
not in temples made with hands; as says the prophet, Heaven is my
throne... what house will you build me?". This cannot mean 'God no longer
dwells in the temple as He used to before Christ's death', because the
reason given is that the prophet Isaiah says that God cannot live in
houses. This reason was true in Isaiah's time, before the time of Christ.
It would seem that Stephen is politely saying: 'Solomon made this mistake
of thinking that God can be limited to a physical building. You're making
just the same mistake'. And he goes on to make a comment which could well
allude to this: "You do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers
(including Solomon) did, so do you" (Acts 7:51). Further evidence that
Stephen saw Solomon's building of the temple in a negative light is
provided by the link between Acts 7:41 and 48: "They made a calf... and
rejoiced in the works of their own hands... howbeit the Most High
dwells not in temples made with hands”. The word "made" is
stressed in the record of Solomon's building the temple (2 Chron.
3:8,10,14-16; 4:1,2,6-9,14,18,19,21). The work of the temple was very much
produced by men's hands (2 Chron. 2:7,8). Things made with hands
refers to idols in several Old Testament passages (e.g. Is. 2:8; 17:8;
31:7). Significantly, Solomon's temple is described as being made with
hands in 1 Chron. 29:5. And it may be significant that the words of Is.
66:1,2 concerning God not living in temples are quoted by Paul with
reference to pagan temples in Acts 17:24, and concerning the temple in
Jerusalem by Stephen. The building of the temple became an idol to
Solomon. Human motives get terribly mixed.
7:48 However- Stephen read Solomon's building of the temple
negatively; see on :47. It was even an example of resisting the Holy
Spirit (:51).
The most high dwells not in houses made with hands- Note that
it was God's clearly expressed wish that He should not live in a
physical house (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Acts 7:48; 17:24). Yet He accommodated
Himself to human weakness in wanting a physical house in which to worship
Him; He came and lived (in a sense) in just such a house. In the same way,
He did not wish Israel to have a system of human kingship; but when they
insisted upon it, He worked with them through it. Just as He does with our
wrong decisions.
As said the prophet- Again the quotation from Is. 66:1,2 is
not exact but a summary of God's intended sense, quotation mixed with
interpretation, as was the habit of Jewish rabbinic interpreters. But the
context of Isaiah 66 is of God's final message to Judah, telling them that
now God is not interested in their rebuilding of Solomon's temple, because
as the sun began to go down on the prophets, He was now going to focus
upon relationship with individuals rather than a formal temple presence.
7:49 The Heaven is My throne-
See on :48 As said the prophet.
And the earth a footstool for my feet- As noted on Acts 2:35,
God's footstool is the place where He is to be worshipped. His worshippers
on earth are therefore in view here, and not the literal planet earth in a
geographical sense. God wanted hearts as His footstool, not anything
physical.
What manner of house will you build Me?
says the Lord; or what is the place of My rest?- This is a
rhetorical question. The sense is not 'You cannot build Me a house';
rather is it a question- what kind of house do you think I want? And the
answer was: A dwelling place in hearts who believe in God's Son. Likewise
"what is the place of My rest?" is rhetorical. The topos or holy
space is not the Jerusalem temple nor the land of Israel; it is in the
hearts of believers in God's Son. Hebrews 4, whether written by Paul or
Stephen, surely alludes to this point by using the same word for "rest" in
describing how Christians are entering the "rest" but Judaism is as Israel
fallen in the wilderness, who did not enter into the rest promised.
7:50 Did not My hand make all these things?- God lives in what
He "makes", and not in temples made by human hands (:48). Through the
agency of the Spirt, God was and is preparing human hearts to be His
'making'. Paul repeats this reasoning in Acts 17:24 and 2 Cor. 5:1;
Stephen's very last words before his death struck home and reaped a great
harvest in the heart of that angry man called Saul who was listening. And
whoever wrote Hebrews, be it Paul or Stephen, says precisely the same
(Heb. 9:11,24). The similarities between Hebrews and Stephen's speech are
many, and they are not just verbal similarities. It's as if Stephen's
thoughts have been developed further. I would therefore suggest that
Hebrews is not Stephen's letter; it appears to be a further development of
his last words. The appropriate author, although we cannot be dogmatic,
would seem to me to be Saul / Paul. The verbal similarities have led some
to assume it must be Stephen; but it makes more sense to me to realize
that this was written by someone who had memorized and developed Stephen's
speech throughout his life. And Paul is to me the compelling candidate.
7:51 You stiffnecked- The reference is to how God wished to
destroy a "stiffnecked" Israel and make of Moses another people of God
(Ex. 32:9; 33:3,5; 34:9). The message contained in that one word
"stiffnecked" was lengthy and powerful. The only other time we read of
being stiffnecked and uncircumcised in the same verse is in Dt. 10:16; and
again there is the point made that circumcision is of the heart more than
the flesh: "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no
more stiff-necked". This was an appeal to Israel. Stephen's allusion shows
that he was not merely imprecating against the Judaists who surrounded
him. He was appealing to them to change, so that they might enter the land
of God's Kingdom. His hopefulness, up to his last words in this world, is
amazing. His passion to save at least some of those hard hearts paid off,
with the conversion of the worst of them, Saul, to become one of the
Lord's greatest servants. See on "hearts and ears" below. "Stiffnecked" is
formed from the word sklero, "hard". The Lord uses just that word
in telling Saul that it is "hard" for him to kick against the goads. A
stubborn ox is literally stiffnecked. The Lord saw that this whole
reasoning about being stiffnecked and uncircumcised had struck home in
Saul's heart. And so He continues the allusion in further appealing to
him. He does the same likewise with us in life and the encounters with
verses in His written word which He leads us to.
And uncircumcised- To call the circumcised Jews uncircumcised,
when circumcision was for them the sign of Divine covenant, was just too
much. Stephen is now making explicit what he has been saying earlier by
way of allusion and implication- they were no more than Gentiles. And
again, the listening, fuming Saul was deeply touched; for later he writes
of how circumcision is a matter of the heart and not of the flesh; indeed,
this is quite a theme with Paul (Rom. 2:28,29; Eph. 2:11; Phil. 3:3; Col.
2:11). Each time he thought and wrote about it, he would've remembered how
the dying Stephen had made this point, and how furious he had been to hear
it. We see in Paul's references to circumcision how he had not only taken
note of Stephen's words, but had taken the reasoning further. Seeing
Hebrews is so full of reference to Stephen's words and developments of
his reasoning, it seems to me that Paul is the likely author; and the
letter is addressed to Hebrews, perhaps to the Jerusalem ecclesia, who
would have known Stephen.
In heart and ears- They "stopped their ears" (:57). They
refused the appeal Stephen was making to circumcise their hearts and ears,
even at that late stage. Circumcision was to be not only of the heart, but
of the ears. Circumcision of ears may seem a strange idea, at first blush.
Stephen is saying that the sign of covenant relationship with God is how
we hear; as his Lord had taught, "Take heed how you hear" (Lk. 8:18;
again, it is Luke who records this). The circumcised ear will hear God's
word; and the relevance of this otherwise throw away word "ears" is in
that Stephen has been appealing to the Jews from the basis of Israel's
well known history. He was asking them to hear that familiar Scripture
with circumcised ears; and they refused. At least, right then at that
moment they did.
You do always- This could just mean 'earnestly, strongly'. But
the idea of regular resistance to the Holy Spirit could refer to their
refusal to hear the real Spirit of God's word as they regularly read it
and encountered the incidents from Israel's history in their Bible study.
For the Holy Spirit was the agency behind the writing of the Bible. See
above on "hearts and ears".
Resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you- See on
:42 Gave them up to serve. The allusion is to Is. 63:10 LXX: "But
they disobeyed, and provoked his Holy Spirit: so he turned to be an enemy,
he himself contended against them". This resistance of the Spirit as we
read the word of the Spirit, refusing to see the points the Lord is making
to us, can be our failure too. The Jews were so proud of being descendants
of the "fathers". But as demonstrated throughout this commentary, Stephen
has been pointing out the weakness of the Jewish fathers, and he appeals
to them to now have a different Father- God.
7:52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?-
Stephen here and in :51 speaks of "your fathers" whereas earlier in his
address he spoke repeatedly of "our fathers" (Acts
7:2,11,12,15,19,38,39,44,45). But having tried to build that bridge
between himself and his audience, by speaking of their common ancestry, he
now makes the appeal for radical change- to disown what those fathers
did. Saul, who was intently listening, was guilty of persecuting the
Christians (Acts 22:4 s.w.). And the Lord continues Stephen's appeal to
him by asking him on the Damascus road: "Why do you persecute Me?" (Acts
9:4,5 s.w.). Note that every prophet was persecuted- even if we don't read
about (e.g. Jonah- although maybe it was Jewish persecution which
disinclined him to preach to Gentiles).
And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One-
Peter had used the same word in Acts 3:28: "The things which God foretold
[s.w.] by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He
thus fulfilled". Stephen may be taking this further in suggesting that the
reason they killed such prophets was because the message of a suffering,
dead Messiah was so deeply unacceptable to the Jews. Stephen is
demonstrating that the Jews' implacable hatred of Jesus of Nazareth was
therefore seamlessly in line with the attitude of an Israel whom God had
rejected. The message of Christ crucified cannot be received
dispassionately; it forces a reaction, either of humbled acceptance, or
anger, even passive anger, but all the same anger- because the human
conscience has been touched in a way nothing else can touch it. And that
anger is directed at the one who brings the message, for he or she is the
human face of Jesus to them. It is Luke alone who records how the Lord
Jesus on the cross was "the just [one]" (Lk. 23:47 s.w.).
Of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers- Judas
the singular betrayer was an embodiment of all the Jewish opposition. I
suggest this is the key to understanding how the 'satan' or adversary of
Jewish opposition entered into Judas. I develop this theme further in 'The
Jewish Satan' in The Real Devil. The Jews doubtless rationalized
the Lord's death by feeling that the Romans had done it. But the early
preachers repeatedly lay the blame for it upon the Jews; hence Stephen
says that they had each one murdered their Messiah; for he speaks of
"murderers" in the plural. This demonstrates that 'going along' with a
seriously wrong position can be counted by God as actually performing the
crime.
7:53 You who received the law
as it was ordained by angels- That Angels gave the Law is clear
from Dt. 33:2 LXX; Ps. 68:17; Gal. 3:19 and Heb. 2:2. But why mention it?
Perhaps because the listening Jews were seeing Stephen's face as if were
an Angel (Acts 6:15). As Israel turned away from the law given by Angels,
so they were turning away from the new covenant being presented to them by
an Angel.
And did not keep it- That Jewish audience were convinced they
were obedient to Torah. To be told they were not, because they didn't
accept their own Messiah... was the last straw. For the argument here is
that to reject Jesus as Messiah was to break the Mosaic law; for obedience
to that law was intended to bring people to Messiah. Note that the Mosaic
law was designed to bring people to Christ not so much through studying
the various types of Christ it contains, but through practically seeking
to obey it. That process would bring people to accept Jesus as the Christ;
but the fact they didn't mean they had not properly kept it. Paul was
influenced by these words of Stephen when he wrote that the circumcised do
not keep the law [s.w., Gal. 6:13].
7:54
Now when they heard these things, they were cut to
the heart- See on Acts 5:33 "Cut to the heart".
And they ground their teeth at him- Such language must surely
connect with the oft repeated description of the rejected gnashing their
teeth at the judgment (Mt. 8:12; 13:42,50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30); as if
those Jews acted out their own rejection by their attitude to the word in
this life. Judgment is ongoing now, in its essence. As Stephen's enemies
"gnashed on him with their teeth", his Biblical mind would therefore have
raced to Job 16:9, describing the behaviour of the wicked towards the
faithful: "He tears me in his wrath, who hates me: he gnashes upon me with
his teeth". The context goes on: "Now, behold, my witness is in heaven and
my record is on high" (v. 19). Surely Stephen had thought ahead to this,
for as his enemies gnashed their teeth against him, "he, being full of the
Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God,
and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56). He looked up to
Heaven and saw His witness, faithful and true, standing there as he
expected.
7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit- This is twice
earlier stated of Stephen (Acts 6:3,5). Those passages suggest this was a
permanent characteristic of Stephen (as Acts 11:24 "a good man and full of
the Holy Spirit"). So whilst this phrase could mean that Stephen was given
a special gift or revelation of the Holy Spirit in his time of final
crisis and death, it could also mean that it was because of his Spirit
filled life that he saw visibly what he had previously only seen by faith-
his Lord Jesus standing at God's right hand in Heaven. Likewise if we live
a spiritual life, hour by hour, then that same Spirit is powerfully
available to us in our times of crises.
Looked up earnestly into heaven- See on 6:15 Fastening
their eyes on him.
And saw the glory of God- This made Stephen equal to the
revered prophets like Elijah, Moses and Ezekiel who had seen such visions
of the cherubim and beheld the shekinah glory. What was so desperately and
obviously absent from the Jerusalem temple was just this- the shekinah
glory. It was what the Jews so earnestly wished they could see there. But
God's presence and fellowship was simply not with them. But Stephen now
saw it- and not in the holy space of the temple's holy place either.
And Jesus- It is normal in the New Testament to describe the
risen Jesus with some title, such as "the Lord Jesus". The simple
"Jesus" directs attention to His humanity; and Stephen reflects this by
referring to Him as "the son of man" (:56). The Lord's humanity was a
great encouragement for Stephen in his most desperate human need, just as
it is for us. This is a powerful practical outcome of understanding that
the Lord was of our human nature and not "very God". I have observed that
whenever the humanity of the Lord is spoken of, His highly exalted status
is often juxtaposed with it. So many proof texts misused by Trinitarians
are located right next to the clearest statements of the Lord's humanity.
And so the reference to "the son of man" is not merely a statement of His
humanity, but is an allusion to the Daniel 7 vision of the "son of man"
coming in judgment in the clouds of Heaven (as Stephen saw Him in the
"glory of God").
Standing
on the right hand of God; and he said- In his time of
dying, Stephen saw the Lord Jesus standing at the right hand of
God (Acts 7:55). But about 13 times in the New Testament, the point is
made that the Lord sits there, unlike the Mosaic priests who
stood (Heb. 10:12). The Lord Jesus was passionately feeling for
Stephen; and He just as emotionally and passionately feels for us in our
struggles. This alone should lift us out of the mire of mediocrity. Prayer
will have meaning and power. It won’t just be the repetitious
conscience-salver it can descend into. Many of those 13 NT references to
the Lord being seated at the right hand of God are in Hebrews; and this
again encourages us to see Hebrews as Paul's deeper reflections upon
Stephen's speech. This would especially be the case if the Jews in the
council actually saw something of what Stephen saw.
7:56- see on Acts 2:33-36.
Look, I see
the heavens opened- The implication is that if they lifted
their eyes, they too could see what Stephen was seeing. It was a desperate
appeal for their repentance in his final seconds. He so wanted them to see
the Lord Jesus as he saw Him. Stephen's passion for the conversion of his
enemies is simply matchless. They refused- rather like the earlier elders
of Israel were invited to witness the theophany of God coming down on
Sinai, but refused; asking Moses to go alone and hear and see it.
And the Son of man- See on :59,60 and :55 Jesus.
Standing on the right hand of God- The allusion could be to a
witness or judge standing. As the human judge condemned Stephen-
presumably by standing up to condemn him as usually happened in law courts
(Acts 7:56 cp. Is. 3:13)- the Lord Jesus stands up in the court of Heaven
as intercessor for Stephen. And this happens time and again in our lives,
as and when and if we suffer the abuse of human condemnation and
misjudgement. Although condemned by an earthly court, he confidently makes
his appeal before the court of Heaven (Acts 7:56). Doubtless he was
further inspired by the basic truth that whoever confesses the Lord Jesus
before men, He will confess him before the angels in the court of Heaven
(Lk. 12:8).
Hebrews- and I have suggested this letter is Paul's extended
reflections upon Stephen's speech- invites us to see Christ as sitting
there in Heaven [this is mentioned about 13 times in Hebrews], unlike the nervous High Priests of old on their annual
entry into the Holiest standing. The fact Stephen saw the Lord
standing at God's right hand suggests that He arose from His
usual position, caught up, as it were, in the passion of mediation for His
suffering servant. Robert Roberts began his life of Christ in Nazareth
Revisited with the simple statement that "Christ is real". Indeed He
is real in our lives, actively passionate for us, just as He was for
Stephen. And we must ask with the German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in
his final writings at the time of death in a Nazi prison: "Who is Christ
for us today?".
7:57 But- I suggest this means that they ignored Stephen's
appeal to 'behold' the vision of the risen Lord which he was seeing. The
power and reality of the Lord Jesus was subsumed beneath a wave of
legalism and anger at injured positions and the desperate desire to deny
that... they might just have been wrong. And so the real Christ has been
obscured, it seems to me, to so many angry legalists, even Christian ones.
They cried out with a loud voice- Not, as we might expect
grammatically, 'with loud voices' in the plural. They were united, and
that unity is stated later in the verse- they "rushed upon him with one
accord". Just as Pilate and Herod, and the warring Jewish factions, were
united in the condemnation of the Lord Jesus. Their unity, and crying out
with a loud voice as the Lord did on the cross, all makes them a kind of
anti-Christ, a synagogue of satan. The very words are used of how Stephen
"cried with a loud voice" (:60). They were no longer merely folks who held
a different theological view; their conscious rejection of God's appeal in
Christ made them an utterly false system which merited only complete
destruction.
And stopped their ears- See on :51 Heart and ears.
And rushed upon him with one accord- The very same words used
of how the Jews did the same to Paul and his brethren, more than once (Acts 19:29). This
means that what Saul and his then brethren did to Stephen, was done to
Paul. He came to realize how it felt. And the Lord leads us to the same
realization, not to punish us, but to lead us to self-understanding and
eternal unity with our brethren whom we have hurt.
7:58 And they threw him out
of the city and stoned him- The very words used by Luke about the
Lord's experience at the hands of His own brethren in Nazareth (Lk. 4:29)
and of how the Son is thrown out of the vineyard and killed in Lk. 20:15.
Baptism identifies us with the Lord's death, and thereby His sufferings
become replicated in all of us who are in Him. Stephen quotes his Lord's
dying words as his own dying words, reflecting his grasp of what was going
on- he was indeed sharing his Lord's sufferings with which he had
willingly identified throughout his life in Him. So the 'throwing out of
the city' was arranged by God to stimulate Stephen to see the similarities
between him and his Lord, just as such events are brought into our lives,
clearly beyond our control. But then we must use our own freewill to
develop that identification, and Stephen does this by quoting the Lord's
dying words as he himself died. Although the stoning of Stephen was
clearly done in hot blood and with no regard to local law nor to Biblical
law, the Jews still wanted to show obedience to the principle of stoning
the condemned outside the camp. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the
similarities between Acts 7 and Hebrews, which I suggest is Paul's
reflection upon Stephen's words and example, and presented initially to
the Jerusalem ecclesia. The appeal to go forth with the Lord Jesus
"without the camp" (Heb. 13:13) surely continues this impression; we are
to be followers of Stephen insofar as he was of the Lord Jesus. If indeed
'St. Stephen's gate' in Jerusalem is correctly located where Stephen was
taken through to his death, he would have been dragged over the Kedron and
through the garden of Gethsemane, thus encouraging his willing
identification with his Lord's final sufferings. See on :60 knelt down.
And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young
man named Saul- "At the feet" is a phrase elsewhere used in
the context to imply that the people there are subservient to the person
(Acts 4:35,37; 5:1). The implication is surely that Paul was responsible
for the stoning, or facilitated it in practice. Paul later was stoned unto
death (Acts 14:5), and through this he learnt how his actions to Stephen
had actually felt. This was far more than a poetic justice for the sake of
it; it was to enable Paul to understand himself and the meaning of his own
positions and actions. The Lord works likewise in our education. There is
another allusion from Hebrews here- we are surrounded by a great crowd of
"witnesses" and should therefore 'lay down' everything that impedes us
from doing the Lord's work (Heb. 12:1). These are the same Greek words as
used here about the witnesses who laid down their clothes. Paul had been
one of those witnesses. The laying aside of garments recalls Aaron's death
on Mount Hor, and there may be the hint that they were now resigning their
priesthood and spiritually dying, outside the promised land.
7:59 And they stoned Stephen-
Stephen's death sentence was against Pharisaic principles; and it
was a studied rejection of the more gentle, tolerant attitude taught by
Gamaliel, Paul's early mentor ("though I distribute all my belonging to
feed the poor..." in 1 Cor. 13:3 is Paul virtually quoting Gamaliel- he
clearly was aware of his stance). People like Paul who come from strict,
authoritarian backgrounds can have a tendency to anger, and yet in Paul
there seems also to have operated an inferiority complex, a longing for
power, and a repressed inner guilt.
As he called upon the Lord- The impact upon Saul must have
been psychologically colossal, for he then goes out to kill and persecute
all who called on the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 9:14,21 s.w.). The Lord
Jesus was working with Saul's conscience; for when He confronts Saul on
the Damascus Road, He uses the same words to invite Saul also to 'call
upon himself the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 22:16).
Saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit- I have suggested in my
commentary on Hebrews that Hebrews was originally a transcript of a sermon
at the breaking of bread meeting at the Jerusalem church, turned into
written form. That audience would have known Stephen well. Hebrews is full
of allusions to Stephen's speech, and my suggestion is that it was not
Stephen writing to his own church before his death, but rather Paul
expanding upon Stephen's speech. As the bitterly angry Saul, keenly
listening to Stephen and grasping his every allusion, he would have felt
the goads of Scripture sticking into his conscience. He remembered every
word, and after his conversion, he took Stephen's thoughts further.
Hebrews, I suggest, is his development of Stephen's words and ideas. The
historical characters mentioned by Stephen are also mentioned by Paul in
Hebrews 11. Paul draws his sermon in Hebrews towards a conclusion by
speaking of how we as Christians have come into association with "the city
of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of
angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborns, who are
enrolled in heaven; and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of
just men made perfect" (Heb. 12:22,23). It seems to me certain that Paul
had Stephen in mind at this point, a clearly 'just man', who had asked the
Lord Jesus in Heaven to receive his spirit, as one of "the spirits of just
men made perfect", and whose name as a martyr was for sure "enrolled in
Heaven".
Realizing, sensing how he was living out the sufferings of his Lord...
all this really motivated Stephen; when he asked for forgiveness for his
tormentors and asked for his spirit to be received (7:59,60), he was so
evidently reflecting the words of the Lord in His time of final agony and
spiritual and physical extension. It is Luke who brings out the similarity
(Lk. 23:34,46). He died in prayer for his enemies, crying out with a loud
voice, commending his spirit to Jesus as Jesus commended His to the
Father... He saw the similarities between his sufferings and those of the
Lord; and therefore he went ahead and let the spirit of the Lord Jesus
live in him. In addressing the Lord Jesus as "Son of Man" (:56), Stephen
is the only person outside the Gospels to use the phrase. Perhaps it was
because in the time of his sufferings, Stephen felt especially keenly the
comfort of the Lord's humanity and the representative nature of His
sacrifice. He personalized those words of the Lord which he already well
knew, and made them his own. This is the intended end point for each of
us- to know the spirit of Christ in His time of dying. It's just that we
each have different paths to lead us there.
7:60 And he knelt down-Luke
uses these very words of how the Lord knelt and prayed in Gethsemane, a
stone's throw distant (Lk. 22:41). Clearly he is making the connection
between the Lord and Stephen, who was stoned to death and thereby a
stone’s throw distant. Stephen is consciously trying to imitate
the Lord Jesus in His time of dying, hence his request for the sins of his
murderers to be forgiven. I have suggested that Stephen was dragged through
Gethsemane on his way to the stoning- see on 7:58 They threw him out
of the city. The Lord brought this to Stephen's mind, and he did his
part in responding by imitating his Lord there in Gethsemane. Kneeling
down, literally 'bending the knee', is the language of worship. Stephen
died in worship of his Lord, whose death and last sufferings he had now
come to know and identify with. By kneeling down instead of lying in a
self-protective position, he was giving his body maximum exposure to the
stones. Like his Lord on the cross, His devotion resulted in his physical
sufferings being shorter than otherwise would have been the case. I have
explained elsewhere that the Lord's refusal to press back on the
sedile of the crucifixion pole hastened His death. Almost all
Stephen's sufferings and words have some issue in Paul's experiences; some
similarities were brought about by the Lord's hand in his life, others
were a result of him consciously imitating Stephen. Luke uses precisely
the same Greek words to record how Paul knelt down and prayed in Acts
20:36. Consciously or unconsciously, Paul was again imitating his hero and
entering his experiences which Paul had brought upon him.
And cried with a loud voice- See on :57 cried with a loud
voice.
Lord, do not charge them with this sin- The sins of the wicked
are written down against them, to be discussed with them at the judgment.
“Charge them not with this sin” certainly sounds as if Stephen expected
that individual actions of human sin will be raised with them at the day
of judgment. And yet the wonder of it all, is that our prayers now for our
enemies can result in their not being charged with those sins. We are in
that sense called to do the work of the advocate, to reflect the saving
mediatorial work of the Lord Jesus in our prayer life right now. Our
prayers for others really can have an effect upon what will be raised with
them at the judgment- for that’s what Stephen prayed for in his time of
dying. And are we to think that his wonderful prayer went unanswered? He
prayed with a loud voice so that they would all hear- for they were
standing a stone's throw away from him, and there would've been much noise
from their screaming and the thud of stones. He died in the hope that his
obtaining of forgiveness for them would result in their repentance. And it
worked wonderfully, at least in the case of Saul. As Saul wasn't throwing
the stones nor gathering them, his attention would have naturally been
fixed upon the person and words of Stephen.
And when he had said this, he fell asleep- This suggests that
he died as an act of the will; he said his last words and died. In this we
see another striking similarity with the Lord's death; He too made His
last sayings, begging for Israel's forgiveness, and breathed His last. The
impression we get is that like the Lord, Stephen's total desire was for
Israel's repentance. And he died with that desire, falling asleep when he
knew he had done what he could.
Previous
