Acts 6:14

Act 6:14. Γὰρ, for) Observe the inference unfairly drawn from the best words, Act 6:13.—οὗτος, this Jesus) Demonstrative, as in Deu 9:3, Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου οὗτος προπορεύσεται, but used by the adversaries of Stephen in bitterness, and contemptuously. With this comp. Luk 15:30, note (the elder son applies οὗτος contemptuously to the younger, the prodigal).—καταλύσει, shall destroy) Every calumny lays hold of some portion of truth. Stephen, inasmuch as it was now mature time, had intimated something of those things which were about to come to pass. And he seems almost to have seen farther into the truth concerning the abrogation of legal rites, than Peter did before the reply of the Spirit, ch. Act 10:19, with which comp. what precedes, Act 6:15.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 6:14 . ὁ Ναζ . οὗτος : not part of the words of Stephen, but of the witnesses see however Blass, in loco. καὶ καταλύσει : the closest similarity to the words in Mar 14:58 ( cf. Mat 26:61 ), and in both passages the same verb καταλύειν is used. It is also found in all three Synoptists in our Lord’s prophecy of the destruction of the Temple, Mat 24:2 , Mar 13:2 , Luk 21:6 , and we find it again in the bitter scorn of the revilers who passed beneath the cross (Mar 15:29 , Mat 27:40 ). The prophecy, we cannot doubt, had made its impression not only upon the disciples, but also upon the enemies of Jesus, and if St. Stephen did not employ the actual words, we can easily understand how easily and plausibly they might be attributed to him. ἀλλάξει τὰ ἔθη , cf. Ezr 6:11 , Isa 24:5 . ἔθος is used by St. Luke seven times in Acts, three times in his Gospel, and it is only found twice elsewhere in the N.T., Joh 19:40 , Heb 10:25 ; in the Books of the Maccabees it occurs three or four times, in Wis 4:16 (but see Hatch and Redpath), in Bel and the Dragon Act 6:15 , in the sense of custom, usage, as so often in the classics. Here it would doubtless include the whole system of the Mosaic law, which touched Jewish life at every turn, cf. Act 15:1 , Act 21:21 , Act 26:3 , Act 28:17 . For the dignity which attached to every word of the Pentateuch, and to Moses to whom the complete book of the law was declared to have been handed by God, see Schürer, Jewish People , div. ii., vol. i., p. 307, E.T., and Weber, Judische Theologie , p. 378 (1897). We have moreover the testimony of Jewish literature contemporary with the N.T. books, cf., e.g., Book of Jubilees , placed by Edersheim about 50 A.D., with its ultra-legal spirit, and its glorification of Moses and the Thorah, see too Apocalypse of Baruch, e.g. , xv., 5; xlviii., 22, 24; li., 3; lxxxiv., 2, 5.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14. We have heard It shall full well appear by Stephen’s defense, that he never spake anything touching Moses or the temple without reverence; and yet, notwithstanding, this was not laid to his charge for nothing, for he had taught the abrogating of the law. But they are false witnesses in this, and suborned to lie, because they corrupt purposely those things which were well and godly spoken. So Christ was enforced to clear himself, that he came, not to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law; because, when he had preached of abrogating the ceremonies, the wicked wrested this unto another purpose, as if he meant to abolish and take away the whole law. Furthermore, they wrested that wickedly unto the temple of Jerusalem, which he spake of his body. What, was it not objected to Paul, that he taught, “That evil is to be done, that good may come thereof?”

Therefore, there is no cause why we should wonder at this day that that is so falsely misconstrued which we teach godly, well, and profitably; yea, we must rather persuade ourselves thus, that the doctrine of the gospel can never be handled so warily and moderately, but that it shall be subject to false accusations; for Satan, who is the father of lying, doth always bestir himself in his office. Again, because there be many things which are contrary to the reason of the flesh, men are inclined to nothing more than to admit false reports, which corrupt the true and sincere sense of doctrine. This malice of Satan, and the sleights, ought to make us more wary and more circumspect that no preposterous thing, or anything that is improperly spoken, escape us, wherewith they may be armed to fight against us; for we must carefully cut off from the wicked that occasion whereat they snatch. And if we see that, doctrine, which is by us well and godly delivered, corrupted, deformed, and torn in pieces with false reports, we must not repent that we have begun, neither yet is there any cause why we should be more slack hereafter; for it is not meet that we should be flee from the poisoned and venomous bitings of Satan, which the Son of God himself could not escape. In the mean season, it is our part and duty to dash and put away those lies wherewith the truth of God is burdened, like as we see Christ free the doctrine of the gospel from unjust infamy. Only let us so prepare ourselves that such indignity and dishonest dealing may not hinder us in our course.

Because we teach that men are so corrupt, that they are altogether slaves unto sin and wicked lusts, the enemies do thereupon infer this false accusation, that we deny that men sin willingly, but that they are enforced thereunto by some other means, so that they are not in the fault, neither bear any blame; yea, they say farther, that we quench altogether all desire to do well. Because we deny that the works of holy men are for their own worthiness meritorious, because they have always some fault or imperfection in them, they cavil that we put no difference between the good and the evil. Because we say that man’s righteousness consisteth in the grace of God alone, and that godly souls can find rest nowhere else, save only in the death of Christ; they object that by this means we grant liberty to the flesh, (to do whatsoever it will,) that the use of the law may no longer remain. When as we maintain the honor of Christ, which they bestow as it pleaseth them here and there, after that they have rent it in a thousand pieces like a prey; they feign that we are enemies to the saints, they falsely report that we seek the licentiousness of the flesh instead of the liberty of the Spirit. Whilst that we endeavor to restore the Supper of the Lord unto his pure and lawful use; they cry out impudently that we overthrow and destroy the same. Others also which take away all things, as did the Academics, because that doth not please them which we teach concerning the secret predestination of God, and that out of the Scriptures, lay to our charge despitefully, that we make God a tyrant which taketh pleasure in putting innocent men to death, seeing that he hath already adjudged those unto eternal death which are as yet unborn, and other such things as can be said on this behalf; whereas, notwithstanding, they are sufficiently convicted that we think reverently of God, and that we speak no otherwise than he teacheth with his own mouth. It is a hard matter to endure such envy, yet must we not therefore cease off to defend a good cause. For the truth of God is precious in his sight, and it ought also to be precious unto us, although it be unto the reprobate the savor of death unto death, (2 Corinthians 2:16.)

But now I return unto Stephen’s accusation, the principal point whereof is this, that he blasphemed God and Moses. They do, for good considerations, make the injury common to God and to Moses, because Moses had nothing in his doctrine which was his own or separated from God. They prove this, because he spake blasphemously against the temple and the law; furthermore, they make this the blasphemy, because he said that the coming of Christ had made an end of the temple and the ceremonies. It is not credible that Stephen spake thus as they report; but they maliciously wrest those things which were spoken well and godly, that they may color their false accusation; but although they had changed nothing in the words, yet Stephen was so far from doing any injury to the law and the temple, that he could no way better and more truly praise the same. The Jews did suppose that the temple was quite dishonored, unless the shadowy estate thereof should endure for ever, that the law of Moses was frustrate and nothing worth, unless the ceremonies should be continually in force. But the excellency of the temple and the profit of the ceremonies consist rather in this, whilst that they are referred unto Christ as unto their principal pattern. Therefore, howsoever the accusation hath some color, yet is it unjust and wicked. And although the fact come in question, that is, whether the matter be so as the adversaries lay to his charge, notwithstanding the state [of the question] is properly [one] of quality, for they accuse Stephen, because he taught that the form of the worship of God which was then used should be changed; and they interpret this to be blasphemy against God and Moses; therefore the controversy is rather concerning right (as they say) than the fact itself; for the question is, Whether he be injurious and wicked against God and Moses, who saith, that the visible temple is an image of a more excellent sanctuary, wherein dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead, and who teacheth that the shadows of the law are temporal?

This Jesus of Nazareth. They speak thus of Christ disdainfully, as if the remembrance of him were detestable. Nevertheless, it may be gathered out of their accusations, that Stephen did, in the abrogating of the law, set the body against the shadows, and the substance against the figure; for if ceremonies be abolished by Christ, their truth is spiritual. The Jews, which would have them continue for ever, did consider nothing in them but that which was gross, carnal, earthly, and which might be seen with the eyes. Briefly, if the use of ceremonies were continual, they should be frail and should vanish away, because they should have nothing but the only external show, so that they should have no soundness. Therefore, this is their true perpetuity, when as they are abrogated by the coming of Christ; because it followeth hereupon that the force and effect thereof doth consist in Christ.

Shall change the ordinances. It is out of all doubt that Stephen meant this of the ceremonial part only; but because men are wont to be more addicted to external pomp, these men understand that which was spoken, as if Stephen would bring the whole law to nothing. The principal precepts of the law did indeed concern the spiritual worship of God, faith, justice, and judgment; but because these men make more account of the external rites, they call the rites which are commanded concerning the sacrifices, ordinances of Moses, by excellency. This was bred by the bone from the beginning of the world, and it will never out of the flesh so long as it lasteth. As at this day the Papists acknowledge no worship of God save only in their visors; although they differ much from the Jews, because they follow nothing but the frivolous invention of men for the ordinances of God.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(14) This Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place.—The accusation rested in part on the words of Joh_2:19, partly on the prediction of Mat_24:2, which Stephen must have known, and may well have reproduced. It would seem to the accusers a natural inference that He who had uttered the prediction should be the chief agent in its fulfilment.

And shall change the customs.—The words seem to have been used in a half-technical sense as including the whole complex system of the Mosaic law, its ritual, its symbolism, its laws and rules of life, circumcision, the Sabbath, the distinction of clean and unclean meats (Act_15:1; Act_21:21; Act_26:3; Act_28:17).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14. for we have heard him say] No doubt there was some handle afforded by Stephen’s words for their statement.

that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place] What the tenor of Stephen’s language must have been may be gathered from Act_7:48, “The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” And to Jewish people at this time to sever worship from Jerusalem was the same thing as to destroy the Temple. The attempt which has been made to shew that the charge against Stephen is merely a reproduction of that made against Jesus is seen to be futile when we observe that in Stephen’s case the witnesses know nothing of “the raising up again of the temple,” and that Stephen himself, by not contradicting but explaining their accusation, in his defence points out that their statement had a widely different origin from that which gave cause to the accusation of Jesus.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For we have heard him say,.... The Ethiopic version adds, "besides"; but rather these words are a reason, giving evidence to, and supporting the general charge:

that this Jesus of Nazareth; Stephen spoke of, and whom they so called by way of contempt:

shall destroy this place; meaning the temple, as the Ethiopic version renders it; and is the same charge, the false witnesses at Christ's examination brought against him:

and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us; that is, the rites, ceremonies, institutions, and appointments of the Mosaic dispensation; and yet this is no other, than what the Jews themselves say will be done, in the times of the Messiah; for they assert (p), that

"awbl dytel, "in time to come" (i.e. in the days of the Messiah) all sacrifices shall cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving.''

(p) Vajikra Rabba, sect. 9. fol. 153. 1. & sect. 27. fol. 168. 4.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.

Ver. 14. Shall destroy this place] sc. Unless they repent.

And shall change the rites] But shall change them for the better. This they cunningly concealed, and made the worst of things, therefore they are counted false witnesses; like as Doeg’s tongue was a false tongue (though he spake but the truth), Psa 120:3, and deceitful, Psa 52:4, condemned to be broiled on coals of juniper, which burn very fiercely, and are a great while ere they go out. A report or testimony may be false, either by denying, disguising, lessening, concealing, misconstruing things of good report; or else by forging, increasing, aggravating, or uncharitably spreading things of evil report; which though they he true, yet if I know them not to be so; or knowing them to be true, if I divulge them not for any love to the truth, nor for respect to justice, nor for the bettering of the hearer or the delinquent, but only to disgrace the one and incense the other; I cannot avoid the imputation of a slanderer and false witness.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Shall change - Shall abolish them, or shall introduce others in their place.

The customs - The ceremonial rites and observances of sacrifices, festivals, etc., appointed by Moses.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

This place; that is, the temple. Jeremiah had foretold this long ago, and did escape, though very narrowly, Jer 26:12-16; Daniel had prophesied of the destruction both of the city and the sanctuary, Dan 9:26; and yet these were in great respect amongst them: and none could speak more plainly of the calling of the Gentiles than Malachi, Act 1:11; and yet when the apostles came to apply these very things more home and close, they could not endure them.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Unto us for us, A.V. We have heard him say, etc. These false witnesses, like those who distorted our Lord"s words (Joh_2:19) doubtless based their accusation upon somesemblance of truth. If Stephen had said anything like what Jesus said to the woman of Samaria (Joh_4:21) or to his disciples, (Mar_13:2) or what the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote (8. 13), or what St. Paul wrote to the Colossians, (Col_2:16, Col_2:17) his words might easily be misrepresented by false witnesses, whose purpose it was to swear away his life. This Jesus of Nazareth. The phrase is most contemptuous. This (outov), so often rendered in the A.V. "this fellow" (Mat_26:61, Mat_26:71; Joh_9:29, etc.) is of itself an opprobrious expression, (Act_7:40) and the oJ Nazwraiov, the Nazarene, is intended to be still more so.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

We have heard him say - So they might. But yet the consequence they drew would not follow.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

See notes on verse 11

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. ἀκηκόαμεν γάρ, for we have heard. No doubt there was some handle afforded for their statement by St Stephen’s language, just as in the case of Jesus Himself. We may gather what the character of that language must have been from Act 7:48, ‘the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands.’ And to Jewish people at this time to sever worship from Jerusalem was the same thing as to destroy the Temple. The attempt which has been made to shew that the charge against Stephen is merely a reproduction of that made against Jesus is seen to be futile when we observe that in Stephen’s case the witnesses know nothing of ‘the raising up again of the temple,’ and that Stephen himself, by not contradicting but explaining their accusation in his defence, points out that their statement had a widely different origin from that which gave cause to the accusation of Jesus.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14.] We may either take the words thus, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος, οὗτος κατ., “that Jesus of N., he it is who shall destroy’ … (see ch. 7:35; 1Co 6:4), or ὅτι Ἰησοῦς, ὁ Ναζωραῖος οὗτος, κατ., ‘that Jesus, this Nazarene, shall destroy …,’—or, which seems by far the best, take the whole together, that this Jesus of N. shall destroy, as in E. V. Compare ὁ Παῦλος οὗτος, ch. 19:26.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This Jesus of Nazareth. Contemptuous.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.