Acts 7:2

I. Transition from Chaldea to Canaan by Abraham, Act_7:2-8.

The very selection of the holy place was really attained by a great transition from the old state of things. Stephen’s purpose in tracing this history of Abraham’s secession Isaiah , 1 st, to show that he is himself in faith still a true Abrahamic Jew; 2d, that Abraham, like Jesus and the Church, in attaining a holy ultimate departed from the old order and encountered difficulties and oppositions at every step; and, 3d, that God is no local deity so attached to one sacred spot but that the true Abrahamic worshipper may anywhere find his God. On the second of these three points Stephen shows that by the command of God Abraham seceded from the idolatrous Chaldeans, and from a probably idolatrous father; and when he arrived at the spot, now held so immutably sacred, he found it preoccupied by the Canaanites, and attained nothing but a promise of its possession in the indefinite future.

The God of glory—Not, as some have feebly rendered it, The glorious God, but the God of that glory which Stephen beheld, Act_7:55. This glory was the visible resplendence of Jehovah’s own presence and person. It was called by the later Jewish writers the Shekinah, from the Hebrew shakan, to dwell. Thus the blaze of the burning bush that appeared to Moses, the splendour of the cloudy pillar that guided Israel, the “glory of the Lord a devouring fire” on Mount Sinai, the sudden flash that destroyed Nadab and Abihu, and the luminous splendour that filled the temple of Solomon at the dedication, were so many instances of the manifestation of the Shekinah, or dwelling Jehovah. In Rom_9:4, among the prerogatives of Israel over Gentilism Paul enumerates the glory.

Mesopotamia—A Greek compound term signifying Between-the-rivers; namely, the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. According to Gen_11:31, the original residence of Abraham was in Ur of the Chaldees, whence he was brought by his father to Haran, or Charran.

Before he dwelt in Charran—God’s first appearance to Abraham mentioned in the Old Testament was not before he dwelt in Charran, but (Gen_12:1-4) while he there dwelt. But there are traces in the Old Testament (Gen_11:31) of a previous call, namely, in Ur of the Chaldeans; thus, (Gen_15:7,) “I am Jehovah who brought thee out of Ur in Chaldea,” implies a divine call made in Chaldea itself. (See also Neh_9:7.) And this is in accordance with the doctrine of Philo and other Jewish writers.

2. As a young man Stephen addresses his fellows as men and brethren, his seniors as fathers. Though a Nazarene, (the future epithet will be Christian,) he will stay, with a mild firmness, in the family of Israel.

Hearken—It has been a problem with commentators how this recital of Hebrew history constitutes a defence of Stephen. But, in fact, it is his loyalty to the glories of that history which is in question, and his rehearsal is a full profession of earnest loyalty. God, Moses, the holy land, the patriarchs, the temple, the ritual, (the five points of accusation, Act_6:13,) are all duly canonized in the recital. Yet under the recital, meanwhile, lurk the grounds of the great inference, which Stephen must be slow and cautious in disclosing, that this whole history converges upon Jesus Messiah. To the hearers of Stephen, familiar with the state of the debates in the synagogues, the points and applications of his speech were doubtless understood and felt.

For amid the permanence of many fundamental things in this history, such as God and the true Church of Israel, there were many transitions and changes, namely, of places, and buildings, and rituals, and eminent typical characters. And it is in rightly separating the permanent from the vanishing that the truth is attained in Christ. The report of this speech most commentators credit to Paul. And it is clear he ever retained impressive memories of this tragic scene. Yet to Luke himself (not, probably, without Paul’s aid) we would rather attribute the record.

We are able to trace in Stephen’s rehearsal of history four great transition periods, to each of which belongs a great typical personage. Period 1st (2-8) is the transition from Chaldea to Canaan, in which the typical name is Abraham. Period 2d (9-19) is the transition from Canaan to Egypt, and the typical character is Joseph. Period 3d (20-43) is the transition from Egypt to Canaan, and the typical character is Moses. Period 4th (44-50) is the transition of the Church from the old tabernacle to the temple, and the typical character is Solomon. From all this, had his speech not been cut short by interruption, he would have shown that the coming of Jesus Messiah must be the fifth and greatest of all transition periods, in which Jesus is not so much the typical character as the antitype to which all the previous characters pointed. In tracing the history of these transitions he shows that, subsequent to the founder Abraham, the great leaders of each change were traduced and persecuted by their opponents; just as at the present day the followers of Jesus were persecuted by the Sanhedrin and its adherents. Jesus and his followers are therefore in the bright side of that history and his opponents are in its shade. Throughout nearly the whole, Stephen traces the divine hand as guiding the advance of these developments. It is the God of glory (Act_7:2) who originates the whole process.

2. Devout men—The term would in itself include Christians, or pious Jews. Both may have commingled in the funeral of the martyr, and that may have been the reason why Luke uses a term that includes both. This contradicts not the fact that the persecution already existed. The plot was being organized, and its subsequent execution was probably aggravated by the dangerously open display of the funeral.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act_7:2. Concerning what Stephen said in reply, Luke’s information may have been derived either from Paul, who probably was present on the occasion (Act_26:10), and afterwards in his own speeches and writings reproduced the martyr’s language (compare Act_7:48 with Act_16:24, and Act_7:53 with Gal_3:19), or from records of it preserved by the Church at Jerusalem. The God of glory.—i.e., who manifested His presence by means of the glory (Exo_16:7; Exo_16:10; Exo_24:16; Exodus 17; Exo_33:18; Exo_33:22; Exo_40:34; Exodus 35; Lev_9:6; Leviticus 23; Num_14:10; Num_14:21-22)—i.e., of the Shechinah or luminous appearance which shone between the Cherubim (Psa_80:1). Before he dwelt in Charran, or Haran.—Carræ in North-West Mesopotamia, about twenty-five miles from Edessa, one of the supposed sites of Ur of the Chaldees, which, however, is now almost unanimously found in Hur, the most important of the early capitals of Chaldæa, the present-day Mugheir, at no great distance from the mouth and six miles to the west of the Euphrates. That Stephen’s statement does not contradict Genesis. (Act_12:1), which places the call of Abraham at Haran (Holtzmann) may be inferred from these facts—

(1) that Gen_15:7 and Neh_9:7 both represent Ur of the Chaldees as the locality in which Abraham received Jehovah’s call, and

(2) that with these both Josephus and Philo agree. There is nothing unreasonable in supposing the call to have been given twice, first in Ur and again in Haran.

Act_7:4. When his father was dead.—If Abraham was Terah’s firstborn (Gen_11:26), and seventy-five when he departed from Haran (Gen_12:4), then Terah could only have been one hundred and forty-five years old at his death, whereas, according to Gen_11:32, Terah was two hundred and five when he died, and must have survived Abraham’s departure from Haran by sixty years; but if Abraham was Terah’s youngest son, and born in Terah’s one hundred and thirtieth year, which, according to the Hebrew narrative, is not impossible, then as Abraham was seventy-five years old when he migrated from Haran, Terah must have been two hundred and five when he died—which agrees with Stephen’s narrative. For he removed the best texts read (God) removed him.

Act_7:5. None inheritance in it.—Not contradicted by Abraham’s purchase of the field and cave at Machpelah (Gen_23:9-11), which were meant for “a possession” of a burying place but not for an inheritance in the strict sense of the term.

Act_7:6. Four hundred years.—If Stephen included in these four centuries the whole period of sojourning, bondage, and oppression, exactly as Jehovah did in Genesis (Act_15:13), this seems to be at variance with Paul’s reckoning of the interval between the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic law as four hundred and thirty years (Gal_3:17), which interval again is represented in Exodus (Exo_12:40) as “the sojourning of Israel who dwelt in Egypt.” Assuming that four hundred may have been a round number for four hundred and thirty, the difficulty remains how to harmonise the statements of Stephen and Paul. If, according to Paul, the interval from Abraham to Moses was four hundred and thirty years, then, inasmuch as Isaac was born twenty-five years after the promise was first given, and was sixty years old at the birth of Jacob, who was one hundred and thirty years of age when he stood before Pharaoh, then 430 − (25 + 60 + 130) = 215, which leaves only two hundred, and fifteen for the years of exile, bondage, and oppression. Either, therefore, Stephen, following the LXX. version of Exo_12:40, which inserts “in the land of Canaan” after “in the land of Egypt, designed his four hundred years to embrace the same period as Paul’s four hundred and thirty indicate—a view supported by Josephus (Ant., II. xv. 2), or he followed Gen_15:13, and understood the four hundred to refer to the Egyptian sojourn, bondage, and oppression, in which case he is again supported by Josephus (Ant., II. ix. 1; Wars, V. ix. 4), who gives both views, but not by Paul. It would remove all appearance of contrariety if Gen_15:13 signified by “a land not theirs,” Canaan as well as Egypt; if this cannot be done, then at the worst Paul and Stephen must be held to have followed different traditions.

Act_7:7. They shall come forth and serve Me in this place.—“They shall come hither again” of Gen_15:16 is replaced by “and serve Me in this place,” suggested by rather than borrowed from Exo_3:2, in which the words are “ye shall serve God upon this mountain.” Stephen, unintentionally mixing up the passages in Genesis and Exodus, may not have been hindered by the Spirit, because the sentiment he expressed was correct; or under the Spirit’s guidance he may have selected the new clause suggested by Exodus to explain the import of the one in Genesis.

Act_7:8. The covenant of circumcision.—I.e., of which circumcision was the sign. See Rom_4:11. The twelve patriarchs.—I.e., the twelve sons of Jacob as the founders of the tribes or heads of the families of Israel. The term also applied to Abraham (Heb_7:4) and to David (Act_2:29).

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_7:2-8

The Progenitor of Israel; or, the History of Abraham

I. The honours he received.—

1. An overpowering revelation.

(1) Of what? Of the glory of God. “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham.” This remarkable expression, “the God of glory,” which occurs only here in the New and but once in the Old Testament (Psa_29:3), nevertheless has its roots in and receives explanation from the latter. Without question it points back to the transaction at Sinai (Exo_16:7; Exo_16:10; Exo_24:16), and identifies the divine Being whose external and symbolic form, an ethereal luminous essence, appeared in the cloud upon the mountain summit (Exo_24:17), and afterwards filled the tabernacle (Exo_40:34), as the same who had revealed Himself to the son of Terah. Whether He appeared in a similar fashion as at Sinai cannot be decided, although Stephen’s language and sundry notices in Genesis (Act_15:17; Act_17:22) almost warrant an affirmative answer. In any case, it does not seem possible to reduce this theophany to a mere subjective impression on the patriarch’s mind.

(2) Where? In Mesopotamia, or the region between the two rivers Tigris and Euphrates; not, however, in the northern district, but in the south, “in the land of the Chaldeans”—i.e., in Ur (Gen_15:7), now identified as Mugheir (see “Critical Remarks”).

(3) When? “Before he dwelt in Haran,” and whilst his father was yet alive. The statement of Stephen does not contradict but supplements that of Genesis (Act_12:1), which appears to say, but does not necessarily mean, that the order to depart from his father’s house was only given to the patriarch in Haran. Haran was not Abraham’s country or land of his nativity, but the land of the Chaldees was (Gen_11:28).

2. An imperative command.

(1) To get out from his land and from his kindred, or, in other words, to become a pilgrim. Hard as the summons was, it was obediently complied with. Abraham’s pilgrimage commenced at Ur, and reached its first stage at Haran. Five years later, on his father’s (Terah’s) death, it entered on its second and final stage.

(2) To betake himself to a new country, the land of Canaan, wherein they, his descendants, were then dwelling; a land which God would show him, a mitigation of the preceding hardship, since a pilgrim under God’s leading must always be safe, and can never come to grief. That Abraham yielded obedience to this command was a signal proof of faith (Heb_11:8).

3. A gracious promise.—

(1) Of a land for a possession, the land of Canaan above-mentioned. Broad acres have ever been a coveted and cherished inheritance. But God, the supreme owner of the soil, distributes them to whomsoever He will. If this promise was broken to the hand and foot, it was kept to the heart and spirit (see below).

(2) Of a son for an heir. Offspring, especially among the Hebrews, has ever been a much-prized blessing. No one man likes to be succeeded by a stranger, and far less to leave his wealth to a servant. Yet just this was the prospect which Abraham at the moment had before him (Gen_15:2). Like land, children are the gift of God (Psa_127:3).

(3) Of a nation for descendants. Most men count themselves happy when they can found a family; but God promised Abraham that his offspring should ultimately develop into a people (Gen_13:16), which, after sojourning in a strange land (Egypt) in a state of bondage for four hundred years, should be emancipated from their thraldom and conducted to their inheritance.

4. A solemn covenant. One would have thought a promise from God’s lips would have been sufficient guarantee for the bestowment of the above-named blessings: and, so far as God’s creature is concerned, that is all he can at any time expect to receive; but, marvellous condescension! God has frequently been pleased to add to His spoken word a visible pledge or seal—in Noah’s case the rainbow (Gen_9:12-17), in Abraham’s circumcision (Gen_17:10-14), the import of which was that Israel after the flesh should be a separated, purged, and consecrated people.

II. The virtues he displayed.—

1. Faith. He believed in God, credited the revelation which had been given him, accepted the invitation proffered him, relied on the promise made to him, and assented to the covenant which had been struck with him. Had faith been awanting—such faith as is the substance of things hoped for (Heb_11:1) and reposes on God’s word (Joh_3:33)—nothing of a spiritual sort could have followed.

2. Obedience. He promptly, cheerfully, and faithfully performed that which God had commanded. First, he went out from Ur along with Terah his father, Sarah his sister-wife, and Lot his nephew (Gen_11:31); and afterwards, when Terah was dead, removing from Haran, he migrated southwards to Canaan.

3. Patience. Though on arriving in Canaan it looked as if the promise were about to fail, as if he were to obtain neither the inheritance nor the heir, yet he quietly adhered to the word which had been spoken (Rom_4:20; Heb_6:15). Nor did he abandon hope when God talked about four hundred years of servitude for his posterity, but calmly rested in God and waited for the fulfilment of what had been promised.

4. Insight. He could see that Jehovah’s promise was larger than any immediate or earthly fulfilment could realise—that the seed was One higher than a child of his loins, even One in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed (Joh_8:56), and that the land was something more desirable than an earthly inheritance like Canaan, was a better country, even an heavenly (Heb_11:10).

III. The rewards he obtained.—

1. God’s promise was fulfilled. He got his son and heir—“Abraham begat Isaac.” His son’s descendants grew into a family—“Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs.” Their households (threescore and fifteen souls, Act_7:14) multiplied into a nation. The nation eventually entered on the occupation of the land (Act_7:45).

2. His own horn was exalted. He became the ancestor of the Jewish people, the progenitor of the Messiah, the father of the faithful, the world-renowned pattern of believers.

Learn.—

1. The sovereignty of God in dispensing His favours.

2. The wisdom of man in walking by faith.

3. The certainty that believers will, ultimately, inherit the promises.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act_7:2. The God of Glory.—The fitness of this designation will appear when it is considered that—

I. God’s dwelling-place is glorious. Heaven (Deu_26:15); eternity (Isa_57:15); both of which are the habitation of His holiness and His glory (Isa_63:15); and in both of which are glory and honour (1Ch_16:27.

II. His character is glorious. In holiness (Exo_15:11); in power (Exo_15:6; Isa_63:12; 2Th_1:9); in grace (Eph_1:6). Or, summing up all His attributes His Name is glorious (1Ch_29:13; Psa_72:19).

III. His works are glorious. The creation of the material universe (Psa_19:1). His providential government of earth (Isa_63:14; Psa_120:3; Psa_145:11; Mat_6:13) His redemption of a lost world (Psa_98:2; Isa_52:10; Eph_1:3; 2Ti_1:9).

IV. His word is glorious. Twice at least is the gospel so designated (2Co_4:4; 1Ti_1:11).

V. His Church is glorious. The company of redeemed ones will yet be presented before Him as a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle (Eph_5:27).

VI. His final appearing will be glorious. Christ, the image of God, will one day be manifested in glory (Col_3:4; Tit_2:13).

Act_7:5. God’s Promises to His People.

I. Often broken in the letter but kept in the spirit.—As it was with the promise of Canaan to Abraham.

II. Though long delayed in fulfilment, never cancelled.—As it was with the promise of a son to Abraham.

III. Sometimes denied to the promisees but granted to their children.—As it was with the inheritance which Abraham obtained not, though his seed did.

Act_7:2-5. The History of a Called Sinner.

I. The divine.—In Abraham’s case this consists of two parts: first, the vision; and, secondly, the command.

1. The vision. The God of glory appeared. Here was

(1) the divine suddenly appearing in the midst of the human,

(2) the true in the midst of the untrue;

(3) the heavenly in the midst of the earthly;

(4) the real in the midst of the unreal. So is it with every genuine conversion; there may not be the actual vision; there may not be the glory which appeared to Abraham in Ur, and to Saul on his way to Damascus; but in all cases it is God breaking in upon man and man’s idolatry; the light of the knowledge of the glory flashing into a soul; the light dispelling the darkness; the true dispersing the untrue; the heavenly supplanting the earthly. This is conversion. It is God coming near; coming in!

2. The command. Get thee out,—go to the land I shall point to. It thus consists of two parts: calling out from, and calling in to. It is a Divine command, urgent and explicit.

II. The human.—This consists of four parts.

1. The obedience. “He came out of the land of the Chaldeans.” He hesitated not, but rose up and obeyed.

2. The pilgrimage. He is not led into Canaan at once.

3. The tribulation. In Abraham’s case it was considerable. Lot’s worldliness, that was a trial; the destruction of Lot’s family, and of Sodom, that was a trial; the death of Sarah, that was a trial. He had many a sorrow.

4. The inheritance at last. Not Babylon, nor Egypt, but the land flowing with milk and honey. Thus our whole life here is one of faith, from first to last. Get thee out, is God’s message to each worldling.—H. Bonar, D.D.

Act_7:6. A great Prophecy and its Fulfilment.

I. The prophecy.—

1. That Abraham should have a seed, when as yet he had no child.

2. That that seed should grow into a people, of which no reasonable prospect existed.

3. That that people should be enslaved for a period of four hundred years.

4. That the nation which enslaved them should be visited with severe punishment.

5. That this punishment should result in their emancipation.

6. That when emancipated they should serve God in the land of Canaan.

II. The fulfilment.—

1. The seed predicted appeared when Isaac was born.

2. The people arose when the patriarchs began to multiply in the days of Jacob.

3. The captivity commenced to realise itself when the seventy souls comprising Jacob’s family went down into Egypt.

4. The punishment threatened against their oppressors took the form of a series of plagues upon the land of Egypt.

5. The emancipation came to pass when Moses led his brethren from the house of bondage.

6. The foretold service of Jehovah was set up when Israel was established in Canaan.

Lessons.—

1. The ability of God to predict and to fulfil.

2. The argument from fulfilled prophecy in support of inspiration.

Act_7:8. The Twelve Patriarchs.

I. Descendants of distinguished men.

II. Not above cherishing sinful feelings.

III. Perpetrators of a hideous crime.

IV. Subjects of a great mercy (Act_7:13).

Act_7:2-8. The experiences of a soul—illustrated in the case of Abraham.

I. A glorious vision.—God. Not impossible to see God by the eye of faith. God still, by His Spirit and through His gospel, reveals Himself to men’s souls. In this inshining of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ lies the beginning of the soul’s new life.

II. A hard precept.—“Get thee out of thy country,” etc. When God makes Himself known to a human soul in the manner above described, it is for the purpose of detaching that soul from its earthly surroundings, separating it from its mundane attachments, leading it forth from its terrestrial relationships, and causing it to start upon a nobler spiritual career.

III. A magnificent promise. That God would conduct him (Abraham) to another and better land, and bestow it on himself and his posterity. Similarly, God never enjoins a soul to enter on a heavenward career without extending to that soul a like assurance of help and guidance towards that ideal state after which it aspires. To the soul that “comes” God will “shew.”

IV. A splendid faith.—“Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans.” Without that response to the divine precept and promise Abraham had never set his foot upon the upward way. Spiritual life on the soul’s side begins with personal acts of trust and obedience. The soul that cannot surrender to God in hearty confidence and prompt submission lacks the capability of being redeemed.

V. A sore disappointment.—Though Abraham obeyed, God gave him none inheritance in the land. The reason was, that God had provided for him something better. God never intended to put him off with a few acres of material soil, but had prepared for him a city in a better country, even an heavenly. The disappointment was required to prepare him for this city. Neither does God engage that gracious souls shall not be disappointed if they seek their inheritance on earth; but he does engage that “all things shall work together for their good,” and that they shall have an inheritance among the saints in light (Col_1:12).

VI. A sufficient consolation.—The covenant of circumcision which formed Abraham’s descendants into a people was a pledge that the land for the people would not be wanting, but would arrive in due time. So to Christian souls is God’s covenant of grace, signed and sealed by the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, ample guarantee that the heavenly inheritance will not fail.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 7:2. Ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες, brethren and fathers) Stephen, being a young man, addresses them according to their different ages.—ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης, the God of glory) The sum of the Divine praise. Glory is the Divinity manifest. This magnificent, appellation implies that Abraham was indebted to GOD for both himself wholly, and his posterity, and the land and all the blessings promised and performed to himself and his posterity, and this without anything on the credit side of the account.—ὤφθη, appeared) as the GOD of glory exhibited Himself to be seen.—τῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν, to our father) Thence it was that this benefit appertained also to the offspring of Abraham.—πρὶν ἢ, before that) comp. Act 7:4, at the end.

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

Act_7:2-3. Brethren and respectively (καί) fathers. The former (kinsmen, אַחִים) refers to all present; the latter (comp. the Latin Patres and the Hebrew אָב in respectful address to kings, priests, prophets, and teachers; Lightfoot, ad Marc. p. 654), to the Sanhedrists exclusively. Comp. Act_22:1.

ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης] God, who has the glory. And this δόξα (כָּבוֹד), as it stands in significant relation to ὤφθη, must be understood as outward majesty, the brightness in which Jehovah, as the only true God, visibly manifests Himself. Comp. Act_7:55; Exo_24:16; Isa_6:3; Psa_24:7; Psa_29:3; and on 1Co_2:8.

Haran, חָרָן, LXX. Χαῤῥάν, with the Greeks (Herodian. iv. 13. 7; Ptol. v. 18; Strab. xvi. 1, p. 747) and Romans (miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit sanguine Carrhas, Lucan. i. 104; comp. Dio Cass. xl. 25; Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 3) Κάῤῥαι and Carrhae, was a very ancient city in northern Mesopotamia. See Mannert, Geogr. V. 2, p. 280 ff.; Ritter, Erdk. XI. 291 ff. The theophany here meant is most distinctly indicated by Act_7:3 as that narrated in Gen_12:1. But this occurred when Abraham had already departed from Ur to Haran (Gen_11:31); accordingly not: πρὶν ἢ κατοικῆσαι αὐτὸν ἐν Χαῤῥάν. This discrepancy[196] is not to be set at rest by the usual assumption that Stephen here follows a tradition probably derived from Gen_15:7, comp. Neh_9:7 (Philo, de Abr. II. pp. 11, 16, ed. Mang.; Joseph. Antt. i. 7. 1; see Krause, l.c. p. 11), that Abraham had already had a divine vision at Ur, to which Stephen refers, while in Genesis 12 there is recorded that which afterwards happened at Haran. For the verbal quotation, Act_7:3, admits of no other historical reference than to Gen_12:1. Stephen has thus, according to the text, erroneously (speaking off-hand in the hurry of the moment, how easily might he do so!) transferred the theophany that happened to Abraham at Haran to an earlier period, that of his abode in Ur, full of the thought that God even in the earliest times undertook the guidance of the people afterwards so refractory! This is simply to be admitted (Grotius: Spiritus sanctus apostolos et evangelistas confirmavit in doctrina evangelica; in ceteris rebus, si Hieronymo credimus, ut hominibus, reliquit quae sunt hominum), and not to be evaded by having recourse (see Luger after Beza, Calvin, and others) to an anticipation in Gen_11:31, according to which the vision contained in Act_12:1 is supposed to have preceded the departure from Ur; or, by what professes to be a more profound entering into the meaning, to the arbitrary assumption that Abraham took an independent share in the transmigration of the children of Terah from Ur to Haran (Baumgarten, p. 134), to which primordial hidden beginning of the call of Abraham the speaker goes back.

ἐν τῇ Μεσοποτ.] for the land of Ur (אוּר כַּשְׂדִּים, Gen_11:28) was situated in northern Mesopotamia, which the Chaldeans inhabited; but is not to be identified with that Ur, which Ammianus Marc. xxv. 8 mentions as castellum Persicum, whose situation must be conceived as farther south than Haran. See, after Tuch and Knobel on Genesis, Arnold in Herzogs Encykl. XVI. p. 735.

ΠΡῚΝ Ἤ] see on Mat_1:18.

ἫΝ ἌΝ ΣΟΙ ΔΕΊΞΩ] quamcunque tibi monstravero. Non norat Abram, quae terra foret, Heb_11:8, Bengel.

[196] Ewald explains the many deviations in this speech from the ordinary Pentateuch, by the supposition that the speaker followed a later text-book, then much used in the schools of learning, which had contained such peculiarities. This is possible, but cannot be otherwise shown to be the case; nor can it be shown how the deviations came into the supposed text-book.

Act_7:2-53. On the speech of Stephen, see Krause, Comm. in hist, et orat. Steph., Gott. 1786; Baur, de orat. hab. a Steph. consilio, Tub. 1829, and his Paulus, p. 42 ff.; Luger, üb. Zweck, Inhalt u. Eigenthümlichk. der Rede des Steph., Lübeck 1838; Lange in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 725 ff., and apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 84 ff.; Thiersch, de Stephani orat., Marb. 1849. Comp. his Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 85 ff.; Rauch in the Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 352 ff.; F.Nitzsch in the same, 1860, p. 479 ff.; Senn in the Evang. Zeitschr. f. Prot. u. Kirche, 1859, p. 311 ff.

This speech bears in its contents and tone the impress of its being original. For the long and somewhat prolix historical narrative, Act_7:2-47, in which the rhetorical character remains so much in the background, and even the apologetic element is discernible throughout only indirectly, cannotso peculiar and apparently even irrelevant to the situation is much of its contents[190]be merely put into the mouth of Stephen, but must in its characteristic nature and course have come from his own mouth. If it were sketched after mere tradition or acquired information, or from a quite independent ideal point of view, then either the historical part would be placed in more direct relation to the points of the charge and brought into rhetorical relief, or the whole plan would shape itself otherwise in keeping with the question put in Act_7:1; the striking power and boldness of speech, which only break forth in the smallest portion (Act_7:48-53), would be more diffused over the whole, and the historical mistakeswhich have nothing surprising in them in the case of a discourse delivered on the spur of the momentwould hardly occur.

But how is the authentic reproduction of the discourse, which must in the main be assumed, to be explained? Certainly not by supposing that the whole was, either in its main points (Krause, Heinrichs) or even verbally (Kuinoel), taken down in the place of meeting by some person unknown (Riehm, de fontib. Act. ap. p. 195 f., conjectures: by Saul). It is extremely arbitrary to carry back such shorthand-writing to the public life of those times. The most direct solution would no doubt be given, if we could assume notes of the speech made by the speaker himself, and preserved. But as this is not here to be thought of, in accordance with the whole spirit of the apostolic age and with Act_6:12, it only remains as the most natural expedient: to consider the active memory of an ear-witness, or even several, vividly on the stretch, and quickened even by the purpose of placing it on record, as the authentic source; so that, immediately after the tragical termination of the judicial procedure, what was heard with the deepest sympathy and eagerness was noted down from fresh recollection, and afterwards the record was spread abroad by copies, and was in its substantial tenor adopted by Luke. The purely historical character of the contents, and the steady chronological course of the greater part of the speech, remove any improbability of its being with sufficient faithfulness taken up by the memory. As regards the person of the reporter, no definite conjectures are to be ventured on (Olshausen, e.g., refers to Act_6:7; Luger and Baumgarten, to the intervention of Saul); and only this much is to be assumed as probable, that he was no hostile listener, but a Christian (perhaps a secret Christian in the Sanhedrim itself),a view favoured by the diffusion, which we must assume, of the record, and more especially by the circumstance, that Act_7:54-60 forms one whole with the reproduction of the speech interrupted at Act_7:53, and has doubtless proceeded from the same authentic source. With this view even the historical errors in the speech do not conflict; with regard to which, however,especially as they are based in part on traditions not found in the O. T.,it must remain undetermined how far they are attributable to the speaker himself or to the reporter. At all events, these historical mistakes of the speech form a strong proof in what an unaltered form, with respect to its historical data, the speech has been preserved from the time of its issuing from the hands that first noted it down.

From this view it is likewise evident in what sense we are to understand its originality, namely, not as throughout a verbal reproduction, but as correct in substance, and verbal only so far, assetting aside the literary share, not to be more precisely determined, which Luke himself had in putting it into its present shapeit was possible and natural for an intentional exertion of the memory to retain not only the style and tone of the discourse on the whole, but also in many particulars the verbal expression. Definitions of a more precise character cannot psychologically be given. According to Baur and Zeller the speech is a later composition, at the foundation of which, historically considered, there is hardly more than an indefinite recollection of the general contents of what was said by Stephen, and perhaps even only of his principles and mode of thought; the exact recollection of the speech and its preservation are inconceivable; the artificial plan, closely accordant with its theme, betrays a premeditated elaboration; the author of the Acts unfolds in it his own view of the relation of the Jews to Christianity; the discussion before the Sanhedrim itself is historically improbable, etc.; Stephen is the Jerusalem type of the Apostle of the Gentiles. See in opposition to Baur, Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 527 ff. Bruno Bauer has gone to the extreme of frivolous criticism: The speech is fabricated, as is the whole framework of circumstances in which it occurs, and the fate of Stephen.

[190] Comp. Calvin: Stephani responsio prima specie absurda et inepta videri posset.

Interpreters, moreover, are much divided in their views concerning the relation of the contents to the points of complaint contained in Act_6:13-14. Among the older interpretersthe most of whom, such as Augustine, Beza, and Calvin, have recourse to merely incidental references, without any attempt to enter into and grasp the unity of the speechthe opinion of Grotius is to be noted: that Stephen wished indirectly, in a historical way, to show that the favour of God is not bound to any place, and that the Jews had no advantage over those who were not Jews, in order thereby to justify his prediction concerning the destruction of the temple and the call of the Gentiles.[191] But the very supposition, that the teaching of the call of the Gentiles was the one point of accusation against Stephen, is arbitrary; and the historical proofs adduced would have been very ill chosen by him, seeing that in his review of history it is always this very Jewish people that appears as distinguished by God. The error, so often committed, of inserting between the lines the main thoughts as indirectly indicated, vitiates the opinion of Heinrichs, who makes Stephen give a defence of his conversion to Christ as the true Messiah expected by the fathers; as well as the view of Kuinoel, that Stephen wished to prove that the Mosaic ceremonial institutions, although they were divine, yet did not make a man acceptable to God; that, on the contrary, without a moral conversion of the people, the destruction of the temple was to be expected. Olshausen stands in a closer and more direct relation to the matter, when he holds that Stephen narrates the history of the O. T. so much at length, just to show the Jews that he believed in it, and thus to induce them, through their love for the national history, to listen with calm attention. The nature of the history itself fitted it to form a mirror to his hearers, and particularly to bring home to their minds the circumstance that the Jewish people, in all stages of their development and of the divine revelation, had resisted the Spirit of God, and that, consequently, it was not astonishing that they should now show themselves once more disobedient. Yet Olshausen himself does not profess to look upon this reference of the speech as with definite purpose aimed at. In a more exact and thorough manner, Baur, whom Zeller in substance follows, has laid down as the leading thought: Great and extraordinary as were the benefits which God from the beginning imparted to the people, equally ungrateful in return and antagonistic to the divine designs was from the first the disposition of that people. Comp. already Bengel: Vos autem semper mali fuistis, etc. In this case, however, as Zeller thinks, there is brought into chief prominence the reference to the temple in respect to the charges raised, and that in such a way that the very building of the temple itself was meant to be presented as a proof of the perversity of the people,a point of view which is foreign to Stephen, and arbitrarily forced on his words, as it would indeed in itself be unholy and impious (2Sa_7:13; 1Ki_5:5; 1Ki_6:12; 1Ch_18:12); comp. on Act_7:49-50. With reason, Luger (who yet goes too far in the references of details), Thiersch, Baumgarten, and F. Nitzsch have adhered to the historical standpoint given in Act_6:13-14, and kept strictly in view the apologetic aim of the speech (comp. also de Wette); along with which, however, Thiersch and Baumgarten not without manifold caprice exaggerate, in the histories brought forward by Stephen, the typical reference and allegorical application of them (by which they were to serve as a mirror to the present) as designed by him,[192] as is also done in the Erlang. Zeitschr. 1859, p. 311 ff. Rauch is of opinion that the speech is directed against the meritoriousness of the temple-worship and of the works of the law, inasmuch as it lays stress, on the contrary, upon Gods free and unmerited grace and election (a similar view was already held by Calvin); but to this there remains the decisive counter-argument, that the assumed point (the non-meritorious nature of grace and election) is not at all expressly brought out by Stephen or subjected to more special discussion. Moreover, Rauch starts from the supposition that the assertion of the witnesses in Act_6:14 was true (see, against this, on Act_6:13), inasmuch as Stephen had actually said what was adduced at Act_6:14.

But if the assertion in Act_6:14 is not adduced otherwise than as really false testimony, then it is also certain that the speaker must have the design of exposing the groundlessness of the charges brought against him, and the true reason for which he was persecuted. And the latter was to the martyr the chief point, so that his defence throughout does not keep the apologetic line, but has an offensive character (comp. the appropriate remarks of F. Nitzsch), at first indirectly and calmly, and then directly and vehemently; the proof that the whole blame lay on the side of his judges, was to him the chief point even for his own justification. Accordingly, the proper theme is to be found in Act_7:51-52, and the contents and course of the speech may be indicated somewhat as follows: I stand here accused and persecuted, not because I am a blasphemer of the law and of the temple, but in consequence of that spirit of resistance to God and His messengers, which YOU, according to the testimony of history, have received from your fathers and continue to exhibit. Thus, it is not my fault, but your fault. To carry out this view more in detail, Stephen (1) first of all lets history speak, and that with all the calmness and circumstantiality by which he might still have won the assembly to reflection.[193] He commences with the divine guidance of the common ancestor, and comes to the patriarchs; but even in their case that refractoriness was apparent through the envy toward Joseph, who yet was destined to be the deliverer of the family. But, at special length, in accordance with the aim of his defence, he is obliged to dwell upon Moses, in whose history, very specially and repeatedly, that ungodly resistance and rejection appeared (Act_7:27 f., Act_7:39 ff.), although he was the mediator of God for the deliverance of His people, the type of the Messiah, and the receiver of the living oracles of the law. Stephen then passes from the tabernacle to the temple prayed for by David and built by Solomon (Act_7:44 ff.). But hardly has he in this case indicated the mode of regarding it at variance with the prophet Isaiah, which was fostered by the priests and the hierarchy (Act_7:48-50), than (2) there now breaks forth a most direct attack, no longer to be restrained, upon his hostile judges (Act_7:51 ff.), and that with a bold reproach, the thought of which had already sufficiently glanced out from the previous historical representation, and now receives merely its most unveiled expression.[194] This sudden outbreak, as with the zeal of an ancient prophet, makes the unrighteous judges angry; whereupon Stephen breaks off in the mid-current of his speech,[195] and is silent, while, gazing stedfastly heavenwards to the glory of God, he commits his cause to Him whom he sees standing at the right hand of God.

[191] Comp. Schneckenburger, p. 184, who considers the speech, as respects the chief object aimed at, as a preparation for Act_28:25 ff.

[192] Thus, for example, according to Thiersch, even in the very command of God to Abraham to migrate, ver. 2 ff., there is assumed to be involved the application: To us also, to whom God in Christ has appeared, there has been a command to go out from our kindred. In ver. 7, Stephen, it is affirmed, wishes to indicate: So will the race of oppressors, before whom he stood, end like Pharaoh and his host, and the liberated church will then celebrate its new independent worship. In the envy of Josephs brethren, etc. (ver. 9 ff.), it is indicated that Christ also was from envy delivered up to the Gentiles, and for that God had destined Him to be a Saviour and King of the Gentiles. The famine (ver. 11) signifies the affliction and spiritual famine of the hostile Jews, who, however, would at length (ver. 13), after the conversion of the Gentiles, acknowledge Him whom they had rejected. Moses birth at the period of the severest oppression, points to the birth of Christ at the period of the census. Moses second appearance points to the (in the N. T. not elsewhere occurring) second appearance of Christ, which would have as its consequence the restoration of the Jews. Aaron is the type of the high priest in the judgment-hall, etc.According to Luger, the speech has the three main thoughts; (1) That the law is not a thing rounded off in itself, but something added to the promise, and bearing even in itself a new promise; (2) That the temple is not exclusively the holy place, but only stands in the rank of holy places, by which a perfecting of the temple is prefigured; (3) That from the rejection of Jesus no argument can be derived against him (Stephen), as, indeed, the ambassadors of God in all stages of revelation had been reviled. These three main thoughts are not treated one after the other, but one within the other, on the thread of sacred history; hence the form of repetition very often occurs in the recital (vv. 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 18, 26, etc.).

[193] The more fully, and without confining himself to what was directly necessary for his aim, Stephen expatiates in his historical representation, the more might he, on account of the national love for the sacred history, and in accordance with O. T. examples (Exo_20:5 ff.; Deu_23:2 ff.), expect the eager and concentrated interest of his hearers, and perhaps even hope for a calming and clearing of their judgment.

[194] We may not ask wherefore Stephen has not carried the history farther than to the time of Solomon. Vv. 51, 52 include in themselves the whole tragic summary of the later history.

[195] What Stephen would still have said or left unsaid, if he had spoken further, cannot be ascertained. But the speech is broken off; with ver. 53 he had just entered on a new stream of reproaches. And certainly he would still have added a prophetic threatening of punishment, as well as possibly, also, the summons to repentance.

Very different judgments have been formed concerning the value of the speech, according as its relation to its apologetic task has been recognised and appreciated. Even Erasmus (ad Act_7:51) gave it as his opinion, that there were many things in it quae non ita multum pertinere videantur ad id quod instituit. He, in saying so, points to the interruption after Act_7:53. Recently Schwanbeck, p. 251, has scornfully condemned it as a compendium of Jewish history forced into adaptation to a rhetorical purpose, replete with the most trifling controversies which Jewish scholasticism ever invented. Baur, on the other hand, has with justice acknowledged the aptness, strikingness, and profound pertinence of the discourse, as opposed to the hostile accusations,a praise which, doubtless, is intended merely for the alleged later composer. Ewald correctly characterizes the speech as complete in its kind; and F. Nitzsch has thoroughly and clearly done justice to its merits. It is peculiarly important as the only detailed speech which has been preserved from one not an apostle, and in this respect also it is a documentum Spiritus pretiosum, Bengel.

As regards the language in which Stephen spoke, even if he were a Hellenist (which must be left undecided), this forms no reason why he should not, as a Jew, have spoken in Hebrew before the supreme council. Nor does the partial dependence on the LXX. justify us in inferring that the speech was delivered in Greek; it is sufficient to set down this phenomenon to the account of the Greek translation of what was spoken in Hebrew, whether the source from which Luke drew was still Hebrew or already Greek.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 7:2 . Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες , cf. St. Paul’s address, Act 22:1 , and also note on Act 23:1 . On St. Stephen’s speech see additional note at the end of chapter. ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης : lit [199] , “the God of the glory,” i.e. , the glory peculiar to Him, not simply ἔνδοξος , a reference to the Shechinah, Exo 24:16-17 , Psa 29:3 , Isa 6:3 , and in the N.T. cf. 1Co 2:8 , and Jas 2:1 (Joh 1:14 ). The appearances to Abraham and Moses were similar to those later ones to which the term Shechinah was applied. Such words were in themselves an answer to the charge of blasphemy; but Stephen proceeds to show that this same God who dwelt in the Tabernacle was not confined to it, but that He appeared to Abraham in a distant heathen land. ὤφθη : there was therefore no need of a Temple that God might appear to His own (Chrys., Hom. , xv.; see Blass, in loco ). τῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν : emphatic, cf. Act 7:19 ; Act 7:38-39 ; Act 7:44-45 ; St. Stephen thus closely associates himself with his hearers. Wetstein comments: “Stephanus ergo non fuit proselytus, sed Judæus natus,” but it would seem from Wetstein himself that a proselyte might call Abraham father; cf. his comment on Luk 1:73 , and cf. Sir 44:21 ; Speaker’s Commentary , “Apocrypha,” vol. ii.; see also Lumby’s note, in loco , and cf. Schürer, Jewish People , div. ii., vol. ii., p. 326, note, E.T. Μεσοποταμίᾳ : a difficulty at once arises in comparing this statement with the Book of Genesis. Here the call of Abraham is said to have come to him before he dwelt in Haran, but in Gen 12:1 , after he removed thither. But, at the same time Gen 15:7 , cf. Jos 24:3 , Neh 9:7 , distinctly intimates that Abraham left “Ur of the Chaldees” (see “Abraham,” Hastings’ B.D., p. 14, and Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine , pp. 166 169, as to its site) in accordance with the choice and guidance of God. St. Stephen applies the language of what we may describe as the second to the first call, and in so doing he was really following on the lines of Jewish literature, e.g. , Philo, De Abrah. , ii., 11, 16, Mang., paraphrases the divine counsel, and then adds διὰ τοῦτο τὴν πρώτην ἀποικίαν ἀπὸ τῆς Χαλδαίων γῆς εἰς τὴν χαῤῥαίων λέγεται ποιεῖσθαι . Moreover the manner of St. Stephen’s quotation seems to mark the difference between the call in Ur and the call in Haran (R.V., not Charran, Greek form, as in A.V.). In Gen 12:1 we have the call to Abraham in Haran given as follows: ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς γῆς σου καὶ ἐκ τῆς συγγενείας σου καὶ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρός σου . But the call in Ur, according to St. Stephen’s wording, is one which did not involve the sacrifice of his family, for Abraham was accompanied by them to Haran, and so the clause ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου κ . τ . λ . is omitted because inappropriate. Of course if we omit ἐκ before τῆς συγγενείας (see critical notes), St. Stephen’s words become more suitable still to the position of Abraham in Ur, for we should then translate the words, “from thy land and the land of thy kindred” (Rendall, cf. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. ). St. Stephen may naturally have referred back to Abraham’s first migration from Ur to Haran, as desiring to emphasise more plainly the fact that since the call of God came to him before he had taken even the first step towards the Holy Land by settling in Haran, that divine revelation was evidently not bound up with any one spot, however holy. Χαῤῥὰν , Gen 11:31 ; Gen 12:5 ; Gen 27:43 , LXX, in the old language of Chaldea = road (see Sayce, u. s. , pp. 166, 167, and “Haran” Hastings’ B.D., and B.D. 2 , i. (Pinches)), in Mesopotamia; little doubt that it should be identified with the Carrœ of the Greeks and Romans, near the scene of the defeat of Crassus by the Parthians, B.C. 53, and of his death, Lucan, i., 104; Pliny, N.H., v., 24; Strabo, xvi., p. 747. In the fourth century Carrœ was the seat of a Christian bishopric, with a magnificent cathedral. It is remarkable that the people of the place retained until a late date the Chaldean language and the worship of the Chaldean deities, B.D. 2 , “Haran,” and see Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judentums , i., 4, p. 499, and references cited by him for identification with Carrœ ( cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 57).

[199] literal, literally.

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

Stephen witnesseth unto the Jews, that he acknowledgeth the true fathers, and the only true God: and showeth moreover, that they are more ancient than the Temple, with all that service appointed by the Law, and therefore they ought to lay another foundation of true religion, that is to say, the free covenant that God made with the fathers.

That mighty God full of glory and majesty.

When he saith afterward, verse 4, that Abraham came out of Chaldea, it is evident that Mesopotamia contained Chaldea which was near unto it, and bordering upon it, and so writeth Plinius, book 6, chap. 27.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 2. Men, brethren, and fathers] Rather, brethren and fathers, for ανδρες should not be translated separately from αδελφοι. Literally it is men-brethren, a very usual form in Greek; for every person knows that ανδρες αθηναιοι and ανδρες περσαι should not be translated men-Athenians and men-Persians, but simply Athenians and Persians. See Ac 17:22. So, in Lu 2:15, ανθρωποι ποιμενες should be translated shepherds, not men-shepherds. And ανθρωπος βασιλευς Mt 18:23, should not be translated man-king, but king, simply. By translating as we do, men, brethren, and fathers, and putting a comma after men, we make Stephen address three classes, when in fact there were but two: the elders and scribes, whom he addressed as fathers; and the common people, whom he calls brethren. See Bp. Pearce, and see Ac 8:27.

The God of glory appeared, c.] As Stephen was now vindicating himself from the false charges brought against him, he shows that he had uttered no blasphemy, either against God, Moses, or the temple but states that his accusers, and the Jews in general, were guilty of the faults with which they charged him: that they had from the beginning rejected and despised Moses, and had always violated his laws. He proceeds to state that there is no blasphemy in saying that the temple shall be destroyed: they had been without a temple till the days of David; nor does God ever confine himself to temples built by hands, seeing he fills both heaven and earth; that Jesus is the prophet of whom Moses spoke, and whom they had persecuted, condemned, and at last put to death; that they were wicked and uncircumcised in heart and in ears, and always resisted the Holy Ghost as their fathers did. This is the substance of St. Stephen's defense as far as he was permitted to make it: a defense which they could not confute; containing charges which they most glaringly illustrated and confirmed, by adding the murder of this faithful disciple to that of his all-glorious Master.

Was in Mesopotamia] In that part of it where Ur of the Chaldees was situated, near to Babel, and among the rivers, (Tigris and Euphrates,) which gave the name of Mesopotamia to the country. See Clarke on Ge 11:31.

Before he dwelt in Charran] This is called Haran in our translation of Ge 11:31; this place also belonged to Mesopotamia, as well as Ur, but is placed west of it on the maps. It seems most probable that Abraham had two calls, one in Ur, and the other in Haran. He left Ur at the first call, and came to Haran; he left Haran at the second call, and came into the promised land. See these things more particularly stated in the notes, See Clarke on Ge 12:1.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

2. Men, brethren, and fathers. Although Stephen saw that those which sat in the council were, for the most part, the sworn enemies of Christ, yet because the ordinary government of the people did belong to them, and they had the oversight of the Church, which God had not as yet cast off, therefore, he is not afraid, for modesty’s sake, to call them fathers. Neither doth he flatteringly purchase favor hereby; but he giveth this honor to the order and government appointed by God, until such time as the authority should be taken from them, the order being altered. Nevertheless, the reverence of the place which they had doth not hinder him nor stop his mouth; but that he doth freely dissent from them, whereby it appeareth how ridiculous the Papists are who will have us so tied unto bare and vain invented titles, that they may enforce us to subscribe unto their decrees, though they be never so wicked.

The God of glory. By this beginning, he declareth that he doth not disagree or dissent from the fathers in true religion which they followed; for all religion, the worship of God, the doctrine of the law, all prophecies, did depend upon that covenant which God made with Abraham; therefore, when Stephen confessed that God appeared to Abraham, he embraceth the law and the prophets, which flow from that first revelation as from a fountain; moreover, he calleth him the God of glory, that he may distinguish him from the false and reigned gods, who alone is worthy of glory.

When he was in Mesopotamia. It is well known that that is called by this name which lieth between the river Tigris and Euphrates; and he saith before, he dwelt in Charran, because Abraham, being warned by an oracle, fled from Chaldea to Charran, which is a city of Mesopotamia, famous by reason of the slaughter of Crassus and the Roman army; although Pliny saith that it was a city of Arabia; and it is no marvel that Chaldea is in this place comprehended under the name of Mesopotamia, because, although that region, which is enclosed with Tigris and Euphrates, [Mesopotamia,] be properly the country between two rivers, yet those which set down any description of countries do call both Assyria and Chaldea by this name.

The sum is this, that Abraham being commanded by God, did forsake his country, and so he was prevented with the mere goodness of God when as he sought that which was offered him at home of the [its] own accord. Read the last chapter of Joshua; but it seemeth that Moses’ narration doth somewhat disagree with this, for after that, about the end of the 11th chapter of Genesis, he had declared, that Abraham doth [did] go into another country to dwell, having left his house, he addeth, in the beginning of the 12th, that God spake unto Abraham. This is easily answered, for Moses reciteth not in this latter place what happened after the departure of Abraham; but lest any man should think that Abraham wandered into other countries, having unadvisedly forsaken his own house, (as light and indiscreet men used to do sometimes,) he showeth the cause of his departure, to wit, because he was commanded by God to flit into another place. And thus much do the words of the oracle import. For, if he had been a stranger in another country, God could not have commanded him to depart out of his native soil, forsaking his kinsmen and father’s house. Therefore, we see that this place agreeth wondrous well with the words of Moses. For after that Moses hath said that Abraham went to Charran, to the end he may show that this journey was taken in hand, not through any lightness of man, but at the commandment of God, he addeth that afterwards which he had before omitted, which manner of speaking is much used of the Hebrews.

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.

(2) Men, brethren, and fathers.—The discourse which follows presents many aspects, each of special interest. (1) It is clearly an unfinished fragment, interrupted by the clamours of the by-standers (Act_7:51)—the torso, as it were, of a great apologia. Its very incompleteness, the difficulty of tracing the argument as far as it goes, because we do not see how far it was meant to go, are indirect proofs that we have a true, though not necessarily a verbatim, report. A later writer, composing a speech after the manner of Herodotus and Thucydides, would have made it a much more direct answer to the charges in the indictment. And this, in its turn, supplies a reasonable presumption in favour of other speeches reported by the same author. (2) Looking to the relations between St. Luke and St. Paul, and to the prominence of the latter among the accusers of Stephen, there is a strong probability that the report was derived from him. This is confirmed by some instances of remarkable parallelism between the speech and his later teaching. (Comp. Act_7:53, Gal_3:19; Act_7:48, Act_17:24). (3) The speech is the first great survey of the history of Israel as a process of divine education—the first development from the lips of a human teacher of principles that had before been latent. As such, it contains the germs which were, in their turn, to be afterwards developed, on the one hand, by St. Paul in the Epistles known to be his, on the other hand by Apollos, or whoever was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. (4) The speech is also remarkable as bringing together within a comparatively small compass a considerable number of real or seeming inaccuracies in the details of the history which is commented on. Whether they are real or apparent will be discussed as we deal with each of them. It is obvious that the results thus arrived at will form something like a crucial test of theories which men have formed as to the nature and limits of inspiration. (5) As Stephen was a Hellenistic or Greek-speaking Jew, it is probable that the speech was delivered in Greek, and so far it confirms the inference which has been drawn from the Aramaic words specially recorded in our Lord’s teaching—“Ephphatha,” “Talitha cumi,” and the cry upon the cross—that He habitually used the former language, and that this was the medium of intercourse between the priests and Pilate. (See Notes on Mar_5:41; Mar_7:34.)

The God of glory.—The opening words are an implied answer to the charge of blaspheming God. The name contained an allusive reference to the Shechinah, or cloud of glory, which was the symbol of the Presence of Jehovah. That was the “glory of the Lord.” He, in like manner, was the “Lord of glory.” (Comp. Jas_2:1.)

Before he dwelt in Charran.—We come, at the very outset, on one of the difficulties above referred to. Here the call of Abraham is spoken of as before he sojourned in Haran, or Charran, west of the Euphrates. In Gen_12:1 it is first mentioned after Abraham’s removal thither. On the other hand, Gen_15:7 speaks of God as bringing him “from Ur of the Chaldees”—i.e., from Mesopotamia, or the east of the Euphrates; and this is confirmed by Jos_24:3, Neh_9:7. The language of writers contemporary with Stephen (Philo, De Abrah.; Jos. Ant. i. 7, § 1) lays stress, as he does, on the first call as well as the second. Here, accordingly, it cannot be said that the statement is at variance with the Old Testament narrative. The word Mesopotamia was used by the LXX., and has thence passed into later versions, for the Hebrew Aram-Naharaim, “Syria of the two rivers” (Gen_24:10; Deu_23:4; Jdg_3:8), and, less accurately, for Padan-Aram in Gen_25:20; Gen_28:2; Gen_28:5-6; where our version retains the Hebrew name.

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

2. And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken] Omit men. Cp. Act_1:16, note. For an account of the argument in Stephen’s speech and its connection with the whole design of the writer of the Acts, see Introduction pp. ix. x.

The God of glory] A not very common expression (see Psa_29:3), but probably chosen designedly as an introduction to this discourse, which deals with the several stages of God’s manifestation of Himself. The term is applied (Joh_1:14) to the incarnate Word; “we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.”

appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia] The ancestral home of Abraham is called “Ur of the Chaldees” (Gen_11:31), and it is said (Jos_24:2-3) to have been “on the other side of the flood,” i.e. beyond the Euphrates. It is not possible to determine the site of Ur, but the most probable opinion seems to be that which places it at Edessa, now called Orfah, and said to have been called Orrha in early times. If this were the place the journey thence to Charran (O.T. Haran), i.e. Carrhæ, would not have been so very formidable for the father of the patriarch to undertake, and at Charran Terah remained till he died (Gen_11:32). Abraham when without his father could remove with greater ease to the distant Canaan.

our father Abraham] If Stephen were merely a proselyte he might yet use this expression, for Abraham is regarded as the father of proselytes. On Gen_12:5, “The souls which they had gotten [Heb. made] in Haran,” the Targum of Onkelos explains “The souls which they (Abraham and his family) had brought to serve the Law,” i.e. made them proselytes: and on the same text Berashith Rabbah, par. 39, has “Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Zimra, said: If all the men in the world were to combine to create even a single gnat, they could not infuse into it a soul; and thou sayest, ‘The souls which they made.’ But these are the proselytes whom they brought in. Yet, if so, why does it say they made them? This is to teach thee that when anybody brings near the stranger, and makes him a proselyte, it is as good as if he had created him.”

before he dwelt in Charran] The Greek verb rendered dwelt is one which implies a settled residence, though it conveys no idea of permanent abode. It is used (Mat_2:23) of Joseph and Mary dwelling at Nazareth, and (Mat_4:13) of Christ’s less fixed dwelling in Capernaum.

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.

And he said,.... Stephen replied, in answer to the high priest's question, and addressed himself to the whole sanhedrim, saying:

men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; to the following oration and defence; he calls them men, brethren, by an usual Hebraism, that is, "brethren"; and that, because they were of the same nation; for it was common with the Jews to call those of their own country and religion, brethren; and he calls them "fathers", because of their age and dignity, being the great council of the nation, and chosen out of the senior and wiser part of the people:

the God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham; he calls God "the God of glory", because he is glorious in himself, in all his persons, perfections, and works, and is to be glorified by his people; and his glory is to be sought by all his creatures, and to be the end of all their actions; and the rather he makes use of this epithet of him, to remove the calumny against him, that he had spoke blasphemous things against God; and because God appeared in a glorious manner to Abraham, either in a vision, or by an angel, or in some glorious form, or another; and it is observable, that when the Jews speak of Abraham's deliverance out of the fiery furnace, for so they interpret Ur of the Chaldees, they give to God much such a title; they say (r).

""the King of glory" stretched out his right hand, and delivered him out of the fiery furnace, according to Gen 15:7.''

Stephen uses a like epithet; and he calls Abraham "our father", he being a Jew, and according to the common usage of the nation: and this appearance of God to Abraham was "when he was in Mesopotamia"; a country that lay between the two rivers Tigris and Euphrates, from whence it had its name; and is the same with Aram Naharaim, the Scriptures speak of; See Gill on Act 2:9. Of this appearance of God to Abraham, mentioned by Stephen, the Scriptures are silent; but the Jewish writers seem to hint at it, when they say (s),

"thus said the holy blessed God to Abraham, as thou hast enlightened for me Mesopotamia and its companions, come and give light before me in the land of Israel.''

And again, mentioning those words in Isa 41:8 "the seed of Abraham my friend, whom I have taken from the ends of the earth"; add by way of explanation, from Mesopotamia and its companions (t): and this was

before he dwelt in Charan; or Haran; see Gen 11:31 where the Septuagint call it "Charan", as here; and by Herodish (u) it is called where Antoninus was killed; and by Pliny (w), "Carra"; and by Ptolomy (x), "Carroe"; it was famous for the slaughter of M. Crassus, by the Parthians (y). R. Benjamin gives this account of it in his time (z);

"in two days I came to ancient Haran, and in it were about twenty Jews, and there was as it were a synagogue of Ezra; but in the place where was the house of Abraham our father, there was no building upon it; but the Ishmaelites (or Mahometans) honour that place, and come thither to pray.''

Stephanus (a) says it was a city of Mesopotamia, so called from "Carra", a river in Syria.

(r) Pirke Eliezer, c. 26. (s) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 30. fol. 25. 1 (t) lb. sect. 44. fol. 38. 3. (u) L. 4. sect. 24. (w) L. 5. c. 24. (x) L. 5. c. 18. (y) ----Miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit sanguine Carrhas. Lucan. Pharsal. l. 1. v. 105. (z) Itinerar. p. 60. (a) De Urbibus.

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

2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,

Ver. 2. The God of glory] Before whom seraphims (those heavenly salamanders) clap their two wings, as a double scarf, on their faces, as not able to bear his brightness, Isa 6:2; or as men are wont to clap their hands on their eyes, in a sudden flash of lightning. Sol reliqua sidera occultat, quibus et lumen suum faenerat, saith Pliny, ii. 6.

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.

Men, brethren, and fathers - These were the usual titles by which the Sanhedrin was addressed. In all this Stephen was perfectly respectful, and showed that he was disposed to render due honor to the institutions of the nation.

The God of glory - This is a Hebrew form of expression denoting “the glorious God.” It properly denotes His “majesty, or splendor, or magnificence”; and the word “glory” is often applied to the splendid appearances in which God has manifested Himself to people, Deu 5:24; Exo 33:18; Exo 16:7, Exo 16:10; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10. Perhaps Stephen meant to affirm that God appeared to Abraham in some such glorious or splendid manifestation, by which he would know that he was addressed by God. Stephen, moreover, evidently uses the word “glory” to repel the charge of “blasphemy” against God, and to show that he regarded him as worthy of honor and praise.

Appeared ... - In what manner he appeared is not said. In Gen 12:1, it is simply recorded that God “had said” unto Abraham, etc.

Unto our father - The Jews valued themselves much on being the children of Abraham. See the notes on Mat 3:9. The expression was therefore well calculated to conciliate their minds.

When he was in Mesopotamia - In Gen 11:31, it is said that Abraham dwelt “in Ur of the Chaldees.” The word “Mesopotamia” properly denotes the region between the two rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris. See notes on Act 2:9. The name is Greek, and the region had also other names before the Greek name was given to it. In Gen 11:31; Gen 15:7, it is called Ur of the Chaldees. Mesopotamia and Chaldea might not exactly coincide; but it is evident that Stephen meant to say that “Ur” was in the country afterward called Mesopotamia. Its precise situation is unknown. A Persian fortress of this name is mentioned by Ammianus Gen 25:8 between Nisibis and the Tigris.

Before he dwelt in Charran - From Gen 11:31, it would seem that Terah took his son Abraham of his own accord, and removed to Haran. But from Gen 12:1; Gen 15:7, it appears that God had commanded “Abraham” to remove, and so he ordered it in his providence that “Terah” was disposed to remove his family with an intention of going into the land of Canaan. The word “Charran” is the Greek form of the Hebrew “Haran,” Gen 11:31. This place was also in Mesopotamia, in 36 degrees 52 minutes north latitude and 39 degrees 5 minutes east longitude. Here Terah died Gen 11:32; and to this place Jacob retired when he fled from his brother Esau, Gen 27:43. It is situated “in a flat and sandy plain, and is inhabited by a few wandering Arabs, who select it for the delicious water which it contains” (Robinson’s Calmet).

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

Brethren; to take away any prejudice they might have conceived against him, and to recommend, not his person as much as his doctrine to them, he calls them brethren;

1. As hoping in the same promises with them;

2. Observing the same law;

3. Worshipping the same God.

Fathers; a word of respect; especially the elder amongst them, or his judges: thus the Roman senators were called fathers; and magistrates ought to be reverenced as the fathers of their country.

The God of glory; who is also called, Psa 24:7, the King of glory; from whom all glory descends to angels or men. By this, and what follows, St. Stephen would show that he honoured the true God, and thought respectfully of the law, the temple, and the patriarchs, whom he was accused to contemn and disgrace. He names Abraham, because he was accounted the first father and patriarch of the Jews, and had the first clear promise that the Messiah should come of his seed.

Mesopotamia is sometimes taken strictly for that country which lies between the two rivers, Tigris and Euphrates, from whence it had its name; sometimes more largely, including Chaldea; and so it is taken here.

Charran; a city of the Parthians, in the borders of Mesopotamia, towards the land of Canaan.

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

Brethren and fathers for men, brethren, and fathers, A.V. Haran for Charran, A.V. Brethren and fathers. The Greek is andrev ajdelfoi (i.e. "men who are also my brethren") kairev. He adds "and fathers" out of respect to the elder and more dignified portion of the Sanhedrim. It seems probable that Stephen, as a Hellenist Jew, spoke in Greek, which is borne out by the quotations being from the LXX (see Alford), though Meyer and others think he spoke in Hebrew. Greek was generally understood at this time by all educated persons (see Roberts, "Discussions on Gospels," Act_2:7.). The speech itself is almost universally admitted to bear strong internal marks of genuineness and originality. But different estimates have been formed of its excellence, and different explanations given of its scope and object. Difficult but striking; long and prolix;" "at first sight absurd and out of place;" "wonderful but difficult;" "of inestimable value;" "a speech containing many things which don"t seem much to the point;" "a powerful speech;" a speech combining "the address of the advocate and the boldness of the martyr; are some of the estimates that have been formed of it by modern commentators. As regards its scope and object, the two main clues to it are the accusation which Stephen rose to rebut, and the application with which he ended in vers. 51-53. If we keep these two things steadily in view, we shall not be very far wrong if we say that Stephen sought to clear himself by showing,

(1) by his historical summary, what a true and thorough Israelite he was in heart and feeling and fellowship with the fathers of his race, and therefore how unlikely to speak blasphemous words against either Moses or the temple;

(2) how Moses himself had foretold the coming of Christ as a prophet like himself, to enunciate some new doctrines;

(3) how at every stage of their history their fathers had resisted those who were sent to them by God, and that now his judges were playing the same part. Perhaps it may be further true, as Chrysostom explains it (Hom. 15., 16., 17.), that his intention in the early part of the speech was to show "that the promise was made before the place, before circumcision, before sacrifice, before the temple," in accordance with St. Paul"s argument; (Gal_3:16-18) and that therefore the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant could not be dependent upon the Law or the temple. The God of glory. This unusual phrase identifies God, of whom Stephen speaks, with the God whose visible glory was seen by the patriarchs (Gen_12:7 Gen_18:1 Gen_26:2 Gen_28:12, 13 35:9; Exo_24:16, Exo_24:17; Num_16:19 Isa 6; Joh_12:41) St. Paul uses a similar phrase, "The Lord of glory". (1Co_2:8) Our father. He thus identifies himself with his judges, whom he had just called "brethren." In Mesopotamia, which would be in Hebrew "Aram of the two rivers." The exact place, as we learn Gen_11:31, was "Ur of the Chaldees;" whence the Israelites were taught to say, (Deu_26:5) "An Aramcan ready to perish was my father." That this appearance was in Ur, before he dwelt in Haran, is manifest from Gen_11:31, because it is there said that they went forth from Ur "to go into the land of Canaan," which makes it quite certain that the appearance of God to Abraham had preceded their leaving Ur, and was the cause of it. And this is confirmed by Neh_9:7; and Josephus ("Ant.," 1. 7:1). Moreover, the very language of the call shows plainly that it came to him when he was living in his native country, among his kindred, and in his father"s house, i.e. at Ur, not in Haran, where they were only sojourners. There is nothing the least unusual, in Hebrew narrative, in the writer going back to any point in the preceding narrative with which the subsequent narrative is connected. Ge 12. I precedes in point of time Gen_11:31; similar examples Gen_37:5, 6 Jud_1:20, passim; 1Sa_17:28; 1Sa_22:20, 1Sa_22:21, compared with 1Sa_23:6; and many more. It is, however, of course possible that a fresh callmay have been given after Terah"s death, though it is by no means necessary to suppose it. Another imaginary difficulty arises from the statement in Gen_12:4 that Abraham was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran, that Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran, and that Terah died at the age of two hundred and five; and from the statement in ver. 4 of this chapter that Abram did not leave Haran till Terah"s death. From which it is concluded that Terah must have lived sixty years after Abram"s departure (70 + 75 + 60 = 205). But the whole difficulty arises from the gratuitous supposition that Abram was Terah"s firstborn because he is named first. If Terah were a hundred and thirty at the birth of Abram, he would be two hundred and five when Abram was seventy-five. Now, there is absolutely nothing to forbid the supposition that such was his age. It does not follow that because Abram is named first he was the eldest. He might be named first as being by far the most illustrious of the three, tie might be named first because the subsequent genealogies Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve Patriarchs were deduced from him. There may, too, have been other sons of Terah, not named here because nothing was going to be said about them. Nahor is mentioned because Rebekah was his granddaughter (Gen_24:15, Gen_24:24) and Rachel his great-granddaughter. And Haran is mentioned because he was the father of Lot. Others, whether sons or daughters, would not be mentioned. If Terah, therefore, began to have children when he was seventy, it is quite probable that Abram may not have been born till he was a hundred and thirty. That the son named first need not necessarily be the eldest is clear from the order in which Shem, Ham, and Japheth are named, whereas it appears from Gen_9:24 that Ham was the youngest, and, Gen_10:2, 21 (according to the A.V. and the LXX, Symmachus, the Targum of Onkelos, and the old Jewish commentators) that Japheth was the eldest. in Jos_24:4 God says, "I gave unto Isaac Jacob and Esau," though Esau was the elder; and so Heb_11:20. So again in Exo_5:20 we read, "Moses and Aaron" (see also Exo_40:31; Num_16:43; Jos_24:5; 1Sa_12:6; etc.) though it appears from 1Ch_6:3 that Aaron was the eldest. So again we read in Gen_48:5, "Thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh," and in ver. 20, "God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh," though in ver. 1 of the same chapter they are named according to the true order of birth and Ephraim." It is, therefore, an unwarrantable inference that Abram was the eldest son because he is named first; and with the removal of this inference the difficulty vanishes; and Stephen was quite accurate when he said that God appeared to Abraham in Ur, before he dwelt in Haran, and that he did not move from Haran till the death of Terah. Haran. Charran in A.V marks the difference between Haran (rh), Lot"s father, and the name of the place (rh). It is called "the city of Nahor" (Gen_24:10 compared with Ge 47) It still exists as an Arab village, with the name of Harran (see "Dictionary of Bible").

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK Vers. 2-53. Stephen"s defense.

It was usual in the court of the Sanhedrim to allow an accused person to plead guilty or not guilty, and to speak in his own defense. As this address of Stephen"s is his defense, we must know of what he was accused. Generally it may be said that he was a blasphemer of God and the Law; but, to understand how such a charge could possibly be made, we must appreciate the intense and superstitious feeling concerning Mosaism which characterized the rulers of that day. The more manifestly that the spiritual life faded out of the older system, the more intensely the people clung to its mere forms and traditions; jealousy of it as a national system had taken the place of faithfulness to it as a revelation of God and a means of grace. Stephen was "the first man who dared to think that the gospel of Jesus was a Divine step forward, a new economy of God, which the existing Hebraic institutions might indeed refuse to accept, but which, in that case, would not only dispense with, but in the end overturn, the Hebraic institutions." So far as a charge was brought against Stephen, it closely resembled that brought against our Lord. The false witnesses declared that they had heard him say "that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place i.e. the temple, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us." But while this was the definite charge, we find that the real offence must have been his bold and unqualified assertion of the Messiahship and divinity of Christ. Stephen"s crime, in the eyes of bigoted Jewish rulers, was his discernment of the spirituality of Christ"s mission; but this Stephen saw on its antagonistic side, and therefore we cannot wonder that he should excite such prejudice against himself. Olshausen well says, "The Jews, with a disposition of mind that looked to outward things, did not rightly comprehend the thoughts of Stephen, but took a distorted view of them. What he had represented as a consequence of the operation of the Spirit of Christ, whose design it was to consecrate the world as a great temple of God, and to guide religion from externals to the heart, that the Jews conceived as a purpose to be accomplished by violence, and thus they ascribed to him the destruction of the temple and the abolition of Jewish usages things which he had never attempted." We may dwell on

I THE FORM OF THE SPEECH AS ADAPTED TO THE JEWISH AUDIENCE. It is a historical resume. With such a Jewish audience is always pleased, and for such marked attention and interest can now be secured. It is remarkable:

1. For the knowledge of Scripture which it reveals a knowledge not concerned only with facts and persons, but with principles and their permanent applications.

2. For the skill with which he selected his Scripture points; so that not until he had patiently traversed the whole period from Abraham to Solomon, selecting such facts as made for his own case, and setting them in skilful array, did he suffer one word to escape him at which even his most adverse hearer could take open exception." Stephen illustrates for us the power that lies in

1. command of Scripture;

2. self-command;

3. skill in the art of rhetoric and of argument;

4. spiritual insight of the deeper meanings of Divine revelation.

II THE RELATION OF THE SPEECH TO THE SPECIFIC CHARGES. He was accused of teaching what would materially change the old Jewish customs. He replies in effect

(1) that God had given a new revelation, and that he was only asking them to hear God"s message and receive God"s Messenger; and

(2) that, in rejecting a new message from God, they were only acting as their fathers had done in all the previous generations. This Stephen, in a very subtle way, hinted at by his historical references; but he reserved the full unfolding of it until the close of his speech.

Then he presses two points home upon the heart and conscience of his audience.

(1) In reference to the charge that he proposed the destruction of the temple and its ritual, he urged that God"s direct spiritual dealings with men were and always had been strictly independent of forms, or ritual, or temple. And

(2) in reference to the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, he urged that the Jews, under every succeeding form of Divine revelation, had resisted the Spirit. Dr. Dykes says, "As often as it had pleased God, through chosen messengers of his will, to lead Israel forward through a new moment of change into a fresh spiritual epoch of blessing, so often had God"s thoughts been misunderstood, his purposes hindered, and his messenger rejected by the bulk of Israel. This had been their national failing to cling to the present and material, whenever God was calling them tohigher spiritual good. This they had done so often that their doing it now, by rejecting a spiritual Christ and idolizing a material temple, was only of a piece with their entire history." We must suppose that the excitement of the Sanhedrim, who detected his point, and the clamor of the crowd, who followed the cue given by the council, reached at last such a height that Stephen could only close his speech suddenly with the few intense words given us in vers. 51-53. It was a noble boldness and a sublime testimony, but we cannot wonder that it fed the flame of excitement and made a violent death for the heroic champion almost a certainty. There are times in life when what colder natures call imprudence is the immediate duty to which men are called. Stephen"s burning words have carried their conviction to human consciences through the long Christian ages. Literature has no intenser warning against losing the spiritual by doggedly clinging to the bare and formal and literal. R.T.

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

And he said - St. Stephen had been accused of blasphemy against Moses, and even against God; and of speaking against the temple and the law, threatening that Jesus would destroy the one, and change the other. In answer to this accusation, rehearsing as it were the articles of his historical creed, he speaks of God with high reverence, and a grateful sense of a long series of acts of goodness to the Israelites, and of Moses with great respect, on account of his important and honourable employments under God: of the temple with regard, as being built to the honour of God; yet not with such superstition as the Jews; putting them in mind, that no temple could comprehend God. And he was going on, no doubt, when he was interrupted by their clamour, to speak to the last point, the destruction of the temple, and the change of the law by Christ. Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken - The sum of his discourse is this: I acknowledge the glory of God revealed to the fathers, ver. 2; the calling of Moses, ver. 34, &c.; the dignity of the law, verses 8, 38, 44; the holiness of this place, verses 7, 45, 47. And indeed the law is more ancient than the temple; the promise more ancient than the law. For God showed himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their children freely, ver. 2, &c.; 9, &c.; 17,&c.; 32, 34, 35; and they showed faith and obedience to God, ver. 4, 20, &c., 23, particularly by their regard for the law, ver. 8, and the promised land, ver. 16. Meantime, God never confined his presence to this one place or to the observers of the law. For he hath been acceptably worshipped before the law was given, or the temple built, and out of this land, ver. 2, 9, 33, 44. And that our fathers and their posterity were not tied down to this land, their various sojournings, ver. 4, &c.; 14, 29, 44, and exile, ver. 43, show. But you and your fathers have always been evil, ver. 9; have withstood Moses, ver. 25, &c., 39, &c.; have despised the land, ver. 39, forsaken God, ver. 40, &c., superstitiously honoured the temple, ver. 48, resisted God and his Spirit, ver. 50, killed the prophets and the Messiah himself, ver. 51, and kept not the law for which ye contend, ver. 53. Therefore God is not bound to you; much less to you alone. And truly this solemn testimony of Stephen is most worthy of his character, as a man full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith and power: in which, though he does not advance so many regular propositions, contradictory to those of his adversaries, yet he closely and nervously answers them all. Nor can we doubt but he would, from these premises, have drawn inferences touching the destruction of the temple, the abrogation of the Mosaic law, the punishment of that rebellious people; and above all, touching Jesus of Nazareth, the true Messiah, had not his discourse been interrupted by the clamours of the multitude, stopping their ears, and rushing upon him. Men, brethren, and fathers - All who are here present, whether ye are my equals in years, or of more advanced age. The word which in this and in many other places is rendered men is a mere expletive. The God of glory - The glorious God, appeared to Abraham before he dwelt in Haran - Therefore Abraham knew God, long before he was in this land. Gen. xii, 1.

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

2 4. We will now take up the different sections of the discourse, treating each separately, and showing their connected bearing upon his main purpose. Before exhibiting the manner in which Moses was treated by the ancestors of his audience, he first shows that the mission on which Moses came was a subject of prophesy: thus indicating, at the outset, an analogy between it and that of Christ. To do this, he must begin with Abraham, to whom this prophesy was first given; but his reference to Abraham is only for the historical introduction of his main theme. (2) “ And he said: Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, (3) and said to him, Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into a land which I will show thee. (4) Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran: and thence, after his father died, he removed into this land in which you now dwell.“

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.

2. Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. In order to make his defence, to unveil the fact that his accusers were fighting God, and to preach Christ, Stephen rapidly outlines Jewish history. Every fact cited has a point. Note (1) that Abraham was called in uncircumcision, and the Christ promised through his seed before he was circumcised; (2) that Joseph, the type of Christ, was rejected by his brethren, and afterwards saves them; (3) that Moses is also rejected and despised, but that God makes choice of him to save Israel; (4) that the Israelites went whoring after false gods and were carried into captivity; (5) that God had the tabernacle and temple built, but was particular to assure Israel that he dwelt not in temples made with human hands; (6) that their Moses, rejected, whom the people refused to obey, predicted a prophet like unto himself, and (7) that in the rejection of Christ they showed just the same spirit as their fathers who had rejected and slain the prophets who predicted Christ's coming. The speech is pointed, logical, and powerful, not intended to conciliate, but to show the Jews their own sins. The God of glory appeared unto … Abraham … in Mesopotamia. See Gen. 12:1. Abraham's childhood home was at Ur of the Chaldees in Mesopotamia, the country between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Gen. 12:1 gives a second call at Haran, or Charran (the same), but Stephen declares that the family had gone from Ur to Charran, because of an earlier call. Charran was on the route to Canaan, and Abraham made a stop there of five years, until his father died (Gen. 11:31, 32). See verse 4 of this chapter.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

2. ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες. Render, Brethren and fathers. For an account of the argument in Stephen’s speech and its connexion with the whole design of the writer of the Acts, see Introduction, p. xv.

ὁ θεὸς τῆς δόξης. The expression occurs in LXX. of Psa 28:3, but is not common. It is probably used here because Stephen is about to speak of the several stages of God’s manifestation. The equivalent of these words is applied (Joh 1:14) to the supreme manifestation in the incarnate Son. ‘We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.’

τῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν, to our father. There is another reading ὑμῶν, due probably to the correction of some one who remembered that Stephen was a Greek. But even if he were merely a proselyte he might use this expression, for Abraham is regarded as the father of proselytes. On Gen 12:5, ‘the souls which they had gotten [Heb. made] in Haran,’ the Targum of Onkelos explains, ‘the souls which they (Abraham and his family) had brought to serve the Law,’ i.e. made proselytes: and on the same text Berashith Rabbah, p. 39, has: ‘Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Zimra, said: If all the men in the world were to combine to create even a single gnat, they could not infuse into it a soul; and thou sayest, ‘The souls which they made.’ But these are the proselytes whom they brought in. Yet, if so, why does it say they made them? This is to teach thee that when anybody brings near the stranger, and makes him a proselyte, it is as good as if he had created him.’

Μεσοποταμίᾳ. The ancestral home of Abraham is called ‘Ur of the Chaldees’ (Gen 11:31), and it is said (Jos 24:2-3) to have been ‘on the other side of the flood,’ i.e. beyond the Euphrates. It is not possible to determine the site of Ur, but the most probable opinion seems to be that which places it at Edessa, now called Orfah, and said to have been called Orrha in early times. If this were the place, the journey thence to Charran (O.T. Haran), i.e. Carrhæ, would not have been so very formidable for the father of the patriarch to undertake, and at Charran Terah remained till he died (Gen 11:32). Abraham, when without his father, could remove with greater ease to the distant Canaan.

πρὶν ἢ κατοικῆσαι, before he dwelt. The verb implies a settled residence, though not necessarily a permanent abode. It is used (Mat 2:23) of Joseph and Mary dwelling at Nazareth, and (Mat 4:13) of the less fixed dwelling of Jesus at Capernaum.

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.

2. ἄνδρ. ἀδ. κ. πατ.] So Paul, ch. 22:1, before a mixed assembly of Jews. The ἄνδρ. ἀδ. would embrace all: the πατ. would be a title of respect to the members of the Sanhedrim, in this case, but hardly in ch. 22:1.

ὁ θεὸς τ. δόξης] Not = θεὸς ἔνδοξος, but the God of (i.e. who possesses and manifests Himself by) Glory, viz. the Shechinah, see Exo 24:16, Exo 24:17, and ver. 55.

The words τῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν decide nothing as to Stephen’s genuine Hebrew extraction. Any Jew would thus speak.

ὤφθη … πρὶν ἢ κατ. αὐτ. ἐν Χαῤ.] This was the Jewish tradition, though not asserted in Genesis. Thus Philo (de Abrah. § 15 end, vol. ii. p. 12), having paraphrased the divine command, says, διὰ τοῦτο τὴν πρώτην ἀποικίαν ἀπὸ τῆς Χαλδαίων γῆς εἰς τὴν Χαῤῥαίων λέγεται ποιεῖσθαι. But he accurately distinguishes between the λόγιον which he obeyed in leaving Chaldæa, and the θεὸς ὤφθη afterwards, adding a reason after his manner, why God could not be seen nor apprehended by him while he was yet χαλδαΐζων and an astrologer. The fact of his having left Ur by some divine intimation is plainly stated in Gen 15:7, and referred to in Neh 9:7. It was surely both natural and allowable to express this first command in the well-known words of the second. But we can hardly suppose that Stephen adopted the pluperfect rendering of וַיֹּאמֶר in Gen 12:1, as the LXX has εἶπεν. (Josephus, ordinarily cited as relating the same tradition, throws, as he often does, the whole history into confusion, saying, it is true, Antt. i. 7. 1, καταλείπει τ. Χαλδαίαν … τοῦ θεοῦ κελεύσαντος εἰς τὴν Χαναναίαν μετελθεῖν, but omitting entirely the sojourn in Haran, and connecting the migration with an outbreak of the Chaldæans against him for teaching the worship of the true God.)

Χαῤῥάν] So the LXX for חָרָן, Gen 11:31, &c.; 4 Kings 19:12; Eze 27:23,—Κάῤῥαι τῆς Μεσοποταμίας, Herodian iv. 13 (Ptol. v. 18. 12. Strabo, xvi. p. 747),—‘Carras cæde Crassi nobiles,’ Plin. v. 24,—‘Miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit sanguine Carras,’ Lucan i. 104. It lay on an ancient road, in a large plain surrounded by mountains; it was still a great city in the days of the Arabian caliphs. See Winer, Realw.

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

Brethren. Addressing the audience generally.

Fathers. Addressing the members of the Sanhedrim.

Of glory. Outward, visible glory, as in the shekinah and the pillar of fire.

Appeared [ωφθη] . See on Luk 22:43.

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