GENERAL REMARKS ON STEPHEN'S SPEECH.

Opinions are divided concerning this speech of Stephen. Some regard it as inconclusive, illogical, and full of errors; others praise it as a complete refutation of the charges brought against him, and as worthy of the fulness of the Spirit with which he was inspired. Erasmus says: "Many things in this speech have not very much pertinency to the matter in hand which Stephen undertook." On the other hand, Bengel observes: "Although he does not put his enunciations in direct contradiction to the enunciations of his adversaries, yet he answers all the charges with power" (Bengel's Gnomon, Acts vii. 1). The relation of the speech of Stephen, in all its particulars, to the charges brought against him is certainly at first sight not obvious; and, accordingly, different opinions have been formed as to the object which Stephen had in view. According to Grotius, Stephen's object is to show in an historical manner that the favour of God is not bound to any place, and that the Jews had no preference over those who were not Jews, in order to justify his prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple and the call of the Gentiles. But the doctrine concerning the call of the Gentiles appears neither to have been understood by Stephen, nor was it brought as a charge against him; and certainly there is no justification of it in his speech. According to Baur, the theme of the discourse consists in this: "The more gloriously God manifested His grace to Israel, even from the beginning, the more perverse and ungrateful was the conduct of the people;" but such a theme suits only a portion of the speech. Meyer represents the chief thought of the speech to be 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 ye, according to the testimony of history, have received from your fathers, and have yourselves fostered. Thus the guilt

1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 50; Zeller's Apostelgeschichte, p. 148; Davidson's New Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 198, 199.

is not mine, but yours." Olshausen conceives that Stephen's reason for narrating the history of the Old Testament was just to show the Jews that he believed it, and thus to induce them through love of their national history to listen with calm attention.2 Chrysostom thinks that Stephen's object was to prove the superiority of the promise to the law. "He shows here," he observes, "that the promise was made before the place, before circumcision, before sacrifice, before the temple." Similar views are also advocated by Lüger and Baumgarten.

It is to be observed that the speech of Stephen is an unfinished production. He was interrupted before he came to the conclusion. He had only entered upon the principal part of his discourse-his testimony to Jesus as the Messiah. We are therefore to regard it as in a measure imperfect. It is indeed an apology or defence against the accusations with which he was charged. He shows that, so far from being a blasphemer of Moses, he honoured him as the prophet of God and the redeemer of Israel; and so far from attacking the temple, he regarded both it and the tabernacle as divine institutions. At the same time, he shows that what God requires is obedience and spiritual worship, and not mere reliance on outward privileges. But along with this apologetic nature of the discourse, there enters a strong polemic element. He attacks the legalism and unbelief of the Pharisees. In citing the examples of the rejection of Joseph and Moses by their fathers, he indirectly points to the rejection of Jesus; in recounting the apostasies of their forefathers, he describes in a figure the unbelief and rebellion of his hearers; and in that portion of his speech where his enemies interrupt him, as the intrepid messenger of God, he fearlessly attacks their obstinacy and resistance of the Holy Ghost, and, like Peter, charges them with being the betrayers and murderers of their Messiah. Stephen probably adopted the form of a historical narrative, in order to veil for a time his attack on

1 Meyer's Apostelgeschichte, p. 151, Dritte Auflage.

2 Olshausen's Gospel and Acts, vol. iv. p. 316, Clark's translation. 8 Chrysostom on the Acts, Hom. xv.

Jewish legalism, so that he might secure the attention of his hearers. This view of Stephen's speech is similar to that given by Neander. "The object of Stephen's discourse," he observes, "was not simple, but complex; yet it was so constructed that the different topics were linked together in the closest manner. Its primary object was certainly apologetic; but as he forgot himself in the subject with which he was inspired, his apologetic efforts relate to the truths maintained by him, and impugned by his adversaries, rather than to himself. Hence, not satisfied with defending, he developed and enforced the truths he had proclaimed; and at the same time condemned the carnal, ungodly temper of the Jews, which was little disposed to receive the truth. Thus, with the apologetic element, the didactic and polemic were combined. Stephen first refutes the charges made against him, of enmity against the people of God, of contempt of their sacred institutions, and of blaspheming Moses. He traces the procedure of the divine providence in guiding the people of God from the times of their progenitors. He notices the promises and their progressive fulfilment, to the end of all the promises, the end of the whole development of the theocracy-the advent of the Messiah, and the work to be accomplished by Him. But with this narrative he blends his charges against the Jewish nation. He shows that their ingratitude and unbelief, proceeding from a carnal mind, became more flagrant in proportion as the promises were fulfilled, or given with greater fulness; and their conduct in the various preceding periods of the development of God's kingdom was a specimen of the disposition they now evinced towards the publication of the gospel." 1

The genuineness of Stephen's speech has been called in question by Baur and Zeller, but certainly without reason. It bears in its nature and contents the impress of authenticity. If a spurious composition, it would have borne a more direct relation to the accusations, and been a clearer refutation of them; or it would have been more fully an attack upon the Jewish rulers. The last verses of the speech 1 Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 52, Bohn's edition.

VOL. I.

R

would have been more extended. The historical references also would have been more obvious in their application; and the apparent discrepancies to the Mosaic narrative, with which the speech abounds, would have been either fewer in number or entirely omitted.1

With regard to the mode of its transmission, we are not indeed to consider it as taken down by a shorthand writer in the court where it was uttered. This would be to transfer modern appliances to ancient times. But the speech of the first martyr must have made a deep impression on the church, and would probably be immediately noted down. Some of the disciples may have been present when it was delivered, or some of the members of the Sanhedrim may have been secret friends. Many (Baumgarten, Lüger, Wordsworth, Humphry, Alford) suppose that Paul himself was the reporter, as he was most probably present when the speech was made; but as at that time he was not a Christian, but an opponent, the supposition is, to say the least, doubtful. Stephen's speech, however, was probably a separate document, which Luke incorporated in his work, as there is a certain peculiarity of style and expression about it.

Opinions are divided as to the language in which the speech was spoken. Meyer supposes, that although a Hellenist, yet before the Sanhedrim Stephen must have spoken in the language of the country, that is, in the Aramaic dialect of the Hebrew. Others, again (De Wette, Lechler, Stier, Alford), think that Greek was the language employed. Greek was the native language of Stephen, and history informs us that it was occasionally employed in the judicial transactions of the Jews: besides, all the numerous references to the Old Testament are taken almost verbatim from the Septuagint. The mere fact, however, of all the quotations being from the Septuagint is no proof that the language in which Stephen spoke was Greek, inasmuch as they might fairly be thus inserted by the original reporter or by Luke.

1 Dean Stanley enumerates no less than twelve variations from the Mosaic narrative.

SECTION XIV.

MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN.-ACTS VII. 54-60.

54 But, hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up stedfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. 57 Then they, crying out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord. 58 And, casting him out of the city, they stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man called Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen, invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 60 And, falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, Lord, retain not this sin to them. And saying this, he fell asleep.

CRITICAL NOTE.

Ver. 56. 'Ave@yμévovs, found in D, E, H, is not so well attested as Sinvoryμévovs, found in A, B, C, s, the reading preferred by Tischendorf.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 54. 'AKOVOVтES SÈ TаÛTα-But hearing these things. The speech of Stephen, especially its direct personal application at the close (vers. 51-53), enraged his audience. Their conscience told them that his reproofs were too well founded; and their rage, hitherto with much difficulty restrained, now found a vent. Διεπρίοντο ταῖς καρδίαις αὑτῶν -they were cut to the heart; literally, they were sawn through or asunder-the same verb which is used in ch. v. 33. (See note.) A different verb is employed when it is said of the converts on the day of Pentecost, that "they were pierced