66

was done, not by declaring a palpable and open falsehood, but by perverting his doctrines, and by stating their own inferences as what he had actually maintained-the common way in which men oppose doctrines from which they differ. The Syriac reads this place, Then they sent certain men, and instructed them that they should say, " &c. This was repeating an artifice which they practised so successfully in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. See Matt. xxvi. 60, 61. We have heard, &c.-When they alleged that they had heard this, is not said. Probably, however, in some of his discourses with the people, when he wrought miracles and wonders among them. (Ver. 8.) Blasphemous words.-See Note, Matt. ix. 3. Moses was regarded with profound reverence. His laws they regarded as unchangeable. Any intimation, therefore, that there was a greater lawgiver than he, or that his institutions were mere shadows and types, and were no longer | binding, would be regarded as blasphemy, even though it should be spoken with the highest respect for Moses. That the Mosaic institutions were to be changed, and give place to another and better dispensation, all the Christian teachers would affirm; but this was not said with a design to blaspheme or revile Moses. In the view of the Jews, to say that, was to speak blasphemy; and hence, instead of reporting what he actually did say, they accused him of saying what they regarded as blasphemy. If reports are made of what men say, their very words should be reported; and we should not report our inferences or impressions as what they actually said. And against God.-God was justly regarded by the Jews as the Giver of their law, and the Author of their institutions. But the Jews, either wilfully or involuntarily, not knowing that they were a shadow of good things to come, and were therefore to pass away, regarded all intimations of such a change as blasphemy against God. God had a right to change or abolish those ceremonial observances; and it was not blasphemy in Stephen to declare it.

VER. 12. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,

And they stirred up the people.—They excited the people, or alarmed their fears, as had been done before when they sought to put the Lord Jesus to death. (Matt. xxvii. 20.) The elders.— The members of the sanhedrim, or great council. Scribes.-Note, Matt. ii. 4. To the council.— To the sanhedrim, or the great council of the nation, which claimed jurisdiction in the matters of religion. See Note, Matt. ii. 4.

VER. 13. And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law :

And set up false witnesses.-It has been made a question why these persons are called false witnesses, since it is supposed by many that they reported merely the words of Stephen.

It may be replied, that if they did report merely his words, if Stephen had actually said what they affirmed, yet they perverted his meaning. They accused him of blasphemy, that is, of calumnious and reproachful words against Moses, and against God. That Stephen had spoken in such a manner, or had designed to reproach Moses, there is no evidence. What was said in the mildest manner, and in the way of cool argument, might easily be perverted so as in their view to amount to blasphemy. But there is no evidence whatever that Stephen had ever used these words on any occasion. And it is altoge- || ther improbable that he ever did, for the following reasons: (1.) Jesus himself never affirmed that he would destroy that place. He uniformly taught that it would be done by the Gentiles. (Matt. xxiv.) It is altogether improbable, therefore, that Stephen should declare any such thing. (2.) It is equally improbable that he taught that Jesus would abolish the peculiar customs and rites of the Jews. It was long, and after much discussion, before the apostles themselves were convinced of it; and when those customs were changed, it was done gradually. See Acts x. 14, &c.; xi. 2, &c.; xv. 20; xxi. 20, &c. The probability therefore is, that the whole testimony false," and was artfully invented to produce the utmost exasperation among the people, and yet was at the same time so plausible as to be easily believed. For on this point the Jews were particularly sensitive; and it is clear that they had some expectations that the Messiah would produce some such changes. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 61, with Dan. ix. 26, 27. The same charge was afterwards brought against Paul, which he promptly denied. See Acts xxv. 8. This holy place. The temple. The law. The law of Moses.

was "

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

m Chap. xxv. 8. n Dan. ix. 26. o Or, rites. Shall change.-Shall abolish them; or shall introduce others in their place. The customs.— The ceremonial rites and observances of sacrifices, festivals, &c. appointed by Moses.

VER. 15. And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

p Exod. xxxiv. 30, 35.

Looking stedfastly on him.-Fixing the eyes intently on him. Probably they were attracted by the unusual appearance of the man, his meekness, and calm and collected fearlessness, and the proofs of conscious innocence and sincerity. The face of an angel.-This expression is one evidently denoting that he manifested evidence of sincerity, gravity, fearlessness, confidence in God. It is used in the Old Testament to denote peculiar wisdom. (2 Sam. xiv. 17; xix. 27.) In Gen. xxxiii. 10, it is used to denote peculiar

Matt.

majesty and glory, as if it were the face of God. When Moses came down from mount Sinai from communing with God, it is said that the skin of his face shone, so that the children of Israel were afraid to come nigh to him. (Exod. xxxiv. 29, 30. 2 Cor. iii. 7, 13.) Comp. Rev. i. 16. xvii. 2. The expression is used to denote the impression which will be produced on the countenance by communion with God; the calm serenity and composure which will follow a confident committing of all into his hands. It is not meant that there was any thing miraculous in the case of Stephen, but is an expression denoting his calmness, and dignity, and confidence in God: all of which were so marked on his countenance, that it impressed them with clear proofs of his innocence and piety. The expression is very common in the Jewish writings. It is common for deep feeling, sincerity, and confidence in God, to impress themselves on the countenance. Any deep emotion will do this; and it is to be expected that religious feeling, the most tender and solemn of all feeling, will diffuse seriousness, serenity, calmness, and peace, not affected sanctimoniousness, over the

countenance.

In this chapter we have another specimen of the manner in which the church of the Lord Jesus was reared on earth. It was from the beginning amid scenes of persecution; and encountering opposition adapted to try the nature and power of religion. If Christianity was an imposture, it had enemies acute and malignant enough to detect the imposition. The learned, the cunning, and the mighty rose up in opposition, and by all the arts of sophistry, all the force of authority, and all the fearfulness of power, attempted to destroy it in the commencement. Yet it lived; and it gained new accessions of strength from every new form of opposition; and only evinced its genuineness more and more, by showing that it was superior to the arts and malice of earth and of hell.

CHAPTER VII.

VER. 1. Then said the high-priest, Are these things so?

This chapter contains the defence of Stephen before the sanhedrim, or great council of the Jews. There has been great diversity of opinion about the object which Stephen had in view in this defence, and about the reason why he introduced at such length the history of the Jewish people. But a few remarks may perhaps show his design. He was accused of blasphemy in speaking against the institutions of Moses and the temple, that is, against every thing held sacred among the Jews. To meet this charge, he gives a statement at length of his belief in the Mosaic religion, in the great points of their history, and in the fact that God had interposed, in a remarkable manner, in defending them from dangers. By this historical statement, he avows his full belief in the divine origin of the Jewish

religion, and thus indirectly repels the charge of blasphemy. It is further to be remembered, that this was the best way of securing the attention of the council. Had he entered on an abstract defence, he might expect to be stopped by their cavils or their clamour. But the history of their own nation was a favourite topie among the Jews. They were always ready to listen to an account of their ancestors; and to secure their attention, nothing more was necessary than to refer to their illustrious lives and deeds. Comp. Psa. lxxviii. cv. cvi. cxxxv. Ezek. xx. In this way Stephen secured their attention, and practically repelled the charge of speaking reproachfully of Moses and the temple. He showed them that he had as firm a belief as they in the great historical facts of their nation. It is to be remembered, also, that this speech was broken off in the midst, (ver. 53, 54,) and it is therefore difficult to tell what the design of Stephen was. It seems clear, however, that he intended to convict them of guilt, by showing that they sustained the same character as their fathers had manifested, (ver. 51, 52;) and there is some probability that he intended to show that the acceptable worship of God was not to be confined to any place particularly, from the fact that the worship of Abraham, and the patriarchs, and Moses, was acceptable before the temple was reared, (ver. 2, &c.) and from the declaration in ver. 48, that God dwells not in temples made with hands. All that can be said here is, that Stephen (1.) showed his full belief in the divine appointment of Moses, and the historical facts of their religion; (2.) That he laid the foundation of an argument to show that those things were not perpetually binding, and that acceptable worship might be offered in other places and in another manner than at the temple.

It has been asked in what way Luke became acquainted with this speech so as to repeat it. The Scripture has not informed us. But we may remark, (1.) That Stephen was the first martyr. His death, and the incidents connected with it, could not but be a matter of interest to the first Christians; and the substance of his defence, at least, would be familiar to them. There is no improbability in supposing that imperfect copies might be preserved by writing, and circulated among them. (2.) Luke was the companion of Paul. See Introduction to the Gospel by Luke. Paul was present when this defence was delivered, and was a man who would be likely to remember what was said on such an occasion. From him Luke might have derived the account of this defence. In regard to this discourse, it may be further remarked, that it is not necessary to suppose that Stephen was inspired. Even if there should be found inaccuracies, as some critics have pretended, in the address, it would not militate against its genuineness. It is the defence of a man on trial under a serious charge; not a man of whom there is evidence that he was inspired, but a pious, devoted, heavenly-minded man. All that the sacred narrative is responsible for, is the correctness of the report. Luke alleges only that such a speech was in fact delivered, without affirming that every particular in it is correct. Then said the high-priest.-See Note, Matt. ii. In this case the high-priest seems to have

4.

Men, brethren, and fathers.-These were the usual titles by which the sanhedrim was addressed. In all this, Stephen was perfectly respectful, and showed that he was disposed to render due honour 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 splendour, or magnificence; and the word "glory" is often applied to the splendid appearances in which God has manifested himself to men. (Deut. v. 24. Ex. xxxiii. 18; xvi. 7, 10. Lev. ix. 23. Numb. xiv. 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 honour and praise. Appeared, &c.-In what manner he appeared is not said. In Gen. xii. 1, it is simply recorded that God "had said" unto Abraham, &c. To our father.-The Jews valued themselves much on being the children of Abraham. Note, Matt. iii. 9. This expression was therefore well calculated to conciliate their minds. When he was in Mesopotamia.-In Gen. xi. 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. Note, Acts ii. 9. The name is Greek, and the region had also other names before the Greek name was given to it. In Gen. xi. 31; xv. 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 afterwards called Mesopotamia. Its precise situation is unknown. A Persian fortress of this name is mentioned by Ammianus, (xxv. 8,) between Nesibis and the Tigris. Before he dwelt in Charran. -From Gen. xi. 31, it would seem that Terah took his son Abraham of his own accord, and removed to Haran. But from Gen. xii. 1; xv. 7, it appears that God had commanded Abraham to remove, and he so ordered it in his providence, that Terah was disposed to remove his family with an intention of going into the land of Canaan. Charran. This is the Greek form of the Hebrew word “Haran." (Gen. xi. 31.) This place was also in Mesopotamia, in 36 52′ N. lat. and 39° 5' E. long. Here Terah died, (Gen. xi. 32;) and to this place Jacob retired when he fled from his brother Esau. (Gen. xxvii. 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.”—Ro- | binson's Calmet.

VER. 3. And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee.

b Gen. xii. 1.

And said unto him.-How long this was said unto him before he went, is not recorded. Moses simply says that God had commanded him to go. (Gen. xii. 1.) Thy kindred.--Thy relatives, or family connexions. It seems that Terah went with him as far as to Haran; but Abraham was apprized that he was to leave his family, and to go almost alone. Into the land, &c.-The country was yet unknown: the place was to be shown him. This is presented in the New Testament as a strong instance of faith. (Heb. xi. 8, 9.) It was an act of simple confidence in God. And to leave his country and home; to go into a land of strangers, not knowing whither he went, required strong confidence in God. It is a simple illustration of what man is always required to do, at the commands of God. Thus the gospel requires him to commit all to God; to yield body and soul to his disposal; and to be ready at his command to forsake father and mother, and friends, and houses, and lands, for the sake of the Lord Jesus. (Luke xiv. 33. Matt. xix. 27, 29) The trials which Abraham might have articipated may be readily conceived. He was going, in a rude and barbarous age of the world, into a land of strangers. He was without arms or armies, almost alone. He did not even know the nature or situation of the land, or the character of its inhabitants. He had no title to it: no claim to urge; and he went depending on the simple promise of God that he would give it to him. He went, therefore, trusting simply to the promise of God. And thus his conduct illustrated precisely what we are to do in all the future, in reference to all our coming life, and to the eternity before us: we are to trust simply to the promise of God, and do that which he requires. This is faith. In Abraham it was as simple and intelligible an operation of mind as ever occurs in any instance. Nor is faith in the Scripture regarded as more mysterious than any other mental operation. Had Abraham seen all that was to result from his going into that land, it would have been sufficient reason to induce him to do as he did. But God saw it; and Abraham was required to act just as if he had seen it all, and all the reasons why he was called. On the strength of God's promises he was called to act. This was faith. It did not require him to act where there was no reason for his so acting, but where he did not see the reason. So in all cases of faith. If man could see all that God sees, he would perceive reasons for acting as God requires. But the reasons of things are often concealed, and man is required to act on the belief that God sees reasons why he should so act. act under the proper impression of that truth which God presents, is faith; as simple and intelligible as any other act or operation of the mind. See Note, Mark xvi. 16.

То

1

was four hundred years; though in another place, (Antiq. b. ii. chap. xv. sect. 2,) he says that they left Egypt four hundred and thirty years after their forefather Abraham came to Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years after Jacob removed to Egypt. Paul also, (Gal. iii. 17,) says that it was four hundred and thirty years from the time when the promise was given to Abraham to the time when the law was given on mount Sinai. The Samaritan Pentateuch says, also, (Exod. xi. 40,) that the "dwelling of the sons of Israel, and of their fathers, which they dwelt in the land of Canaan, and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years." The same is the version of the Septuagint. A part of this perplexity is removed by the fact that Stephen and Moses use, in accordance with a very common custom, round numbers in speaking of it, and thus speak of four hundred years when the literal time was four hundred and thirty. The other perplexities are not so easily removed. From the account which Moses has given of the lives of certain persons, it would seem clear that the time which they spent in Egypt was not four hundred years. From Gen. xlvi. 8, 11, it appears that Kohath was born when Jacob went into Egypt. He lived one hundred and thirtythree years. (Exod. vi. 18.) Amram, his son, and the father of Moses, lived one hundred and thirty-seven years. (Exod. vi. 20.) Moses was eighty years old when he was sent to Pharaoh. (Exod. vii. 7.) The whole time thus mentioned, including the time in which the father lived after his son was born, was only three hundred and fifty years. Exclusive of that, it is reasonable to suppose that the actual time of their being in Egypt could not have been but about two hundred years, according to one account of Josephus. The question, then, is, how can these accounts be reconciled? The only satisfactory way is, by supposing that the four hundred and thirty years includes the whole time from the calling of Abraham to the departure from Egypt. And that this was the fact is probable from the following circumstances: (1.) The purpose of all the narratives on this subject is to trace the period before they became finally settled in the land of Canaan. During all this period, from the calling of Abraham, they were in a wandering, unfixed situation. This constituted substantially one period, including all their oppressions, hardships, and dangers; and it was natural to have reference to this entire period in any account which was given. (2.) All this period was properly the period of promise, not of possession. In this respect, the wanderings of Abraham and the oppressions of Egypt came under the same general description. (3.) Abraham was himself occasionally in Egypt. He was unsettled; and since Egypt was so pre-eminent in all their troubles, it was natural to speak of all their oppressions as having occurred in that country. The phrase, "residence in Egypt," or "in a stange land," would come to be synonymous, and would denote all their oppressions and trials. They would speak of their sufferings as having been endured in Egypt, because their afflictions there were so much more prominent than before. (4.) All this receives countenance from the version of the

LXX., and from the Samaritan text, showing the manner in which the ancient Jews were accustomed to understand it. (5.) It should be added, that difficulties of chronology are more likely to occur than any others; and it should not be deemed strange, if there are perplexities of this kind found in ancient writings, which we cannot explain. It is so in all ancient records; and all that is usually expected in relation to such difficulties is, that we should be able to present a probable explanation.

VER. 7. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God; and after that shall they come forth, and serve & me in this place.

g Exod. iii. 12.

And the nation, &c.-Referring particularly to the Egyptians. Will I judge.-The word “judge,” in the Bible, often means to "execute judgment," as well as to pronounce it; that is, "to punish." See John xviii. 31; iii. 17; viii. 50; xii. 47. Acts xxiv. 6. 1 Cor. v. 13, &c. It has this meaning here. God regarded their oppressive acts as deserving his indignation, and he evinced it in the plagues with which he visited them, and in their overthrow in the Red Sea. Shall serve me.-Shall worship me, or be regarded as my people. In this place. That is, in the place where God made this promise to Abraham. These words are not found in Genesis; but similar words are found in Exod. iii. 12; and it was a practice, in making quotations, to quote the sense only, or to connect two or more promises having relation to the same thing.

And he gave him.-That is, God appointed or commanded this. (Gen. xvii. 9-13.) The covenant. The word "covenant" denotes properly a compact or agreement between two or more persons, usually attended with seals, or pledges, or sanctions. In Gen. xvii. 7, and elsewhere, it is said that God would establish his covenant with Abraham; that is, he made him certain definite promises, attended with pledges and seals, &c. The idea of a strict compact or agreement between God and man, as between equal parties, is not found in the Bible. It is commonly used, as here, to denote a promise on the part of God, attended with pledges, and demanding, on the part of man, in order to avail himself of its benefits, a stipulated course of conduct. The covenant is therefore another name for denoting two things on the part of God: (1.) A command, which man is not at liberty to reject, as he would be if a literal covenant; and (2.) A promise, which is to be fulfilled only on the condition of obedience. The covenant with Abraham was