The Pulpit Commentary
And the high priest said for then said the high priest, A.V. The high priest spoke as president of the Sanhedrim (see Act_9:1-43. 1 and Mat_26:62). Theophilus the son of Annas or his brother Jonathan is probably meant.

The Pulpit Commentary
Brethren and fathers for men, brethren, and fathers, A.V. Haran for Charran, A.V. Brethren and fathers. The Greek is ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ (i.e. "men who are also my brethren") καὶ πατέρες. 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,' Acts 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 Act_7:51-53. 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, Gen_28:13; Gen_35:9; Exo_24:16, Exo_24:17; Num_16:19; Isa_6:1-13.; 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 from 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 Gen_15:7; 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. Gen_12:1-20. I precedes in point of time Gen_11:31; similar examples are Gen_37:5, Gen_37:6; Jdg_20:1-48., passim; 1Sa_16:21 compared with 1Sa_17:28; 1Sa_22:20, 1Sa_22:21, compared with 1Sa_23:1-29. 6; and many more. It is, however, of course possible that a fresh call may 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 Gen_12:4 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. 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 from Gen_10:2, Gen_10:21 (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 verse 20, "God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh," though in verse I of the same chapter they are named according to the true order of birth—"Manasseh 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 (נרָהָ), Lot's father, and the name of the place (נרָהָ). It is called "the city of Nahor" (Gen_24:10 compared with Gen_47:1-31 :43). It still exists as an Arab village, with the name of Harran (see 'Dictionary of Bible').

Thy land for thy country, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
Haran for Charran, A.V.; God removed for he removed, A.V. The land of the Chaldaeans. In Gen_11:28 Ur is called "Ur of the Chaldees." When his father was dead (see note to Gen_11:2). God removed. That God is the subject appears from the following verbs, "he gave," "he promised." The verb μετώκισεν, he removed, is the technical word for planting a colony. Wherein, etc. (εἰς ἢν); into which ye came and dwelt.

The Pulpit Commentary
And for yet, A.V.; in for for a, A.V. He gave him none inheritance, etc. (comp. Heb_11:8, Heb_11:9).

The Pulpit Commentary
In a strange land; a land belonging to some one else (Heb_11:9, γῆ ἀλλοτρία, as here); a land in which he had none inheritance, not yet become the possession of his seed; for as the writer to the Hebrews says, he dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob; not applicable, therefore, in the first instance to Egypt at all. And this sojourning as strangers and pilgrims lasted altogether four hundred and thirty years, vie. two hundred and fifteen years in Canaan, and two hundred and fifteen in Egypt; which agrees exactly with St. Paul's reckoning in round numbers of four hundred years from the giving of the promise to Abraham to the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai (Gal_3:17). The "four hundred years" must not be taken in connection with the bondage" and the ill treatment which characterized the last half of the period, but as spoken of the whole period during which they had not possession of the promised land. Bring them into bondage. So the LXX.; but the Hebrew, as rendered in the A.V., has "and they shall serve them." But some (see Gesenius, 'Thes.') render the Hebrew as the LXX. Do. Four hundred years. This is a round number, as in Gen_15:13. The exact time, as given in Exo_12:40, Exo_12:41, was four hundred and thirty years.

The Pulpit Commentary
Which for whom, A.V. And serve me in this place. These words are not in Gen_15:1-21., from which the preceding words are quoted. Instead of καὶ λατρεύσουσι μοί ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τούτῳ, the LXX, following the Hebrew, have μετὰ ἀποσκεύης πολλῆς, "with great substance." The words "serve me in this place," seem certainly to have been suggested by Exo_3:12, "Ye shall serve God upon this mountain;" but they give a perfectly correct account of what happened in this ease.

The Pulpit Commentary
Jacob the twelve for Jacob begat the twelve, A.V. He gave him the covenant of circumcision, subsequently to the gift of the land by promise. The argument suggested is apparently the same as St. Paul's in Rom_4:10-17.

The Pulpit Commentary
Moved with jealousy against Joseph, sold him, for moved with envy sold Joseph, A.V., more correctly, and in accordance with Gen_37:11, LXX.; and for but, A.V. Moved with jealousy, etc. Here breaks out that part of Stephen's argument which went to show how the Israelites had always ill-used their greatest benefactors, and resisted the leaders sent to them by God.

The Pulpit Commentary
Before for in the sight of, A.V. And delivered him, etc. And even so had he delivered his servant Jesus from the grave, and raised him to eternal life.

The Pulpit Commentary
Famine for dearth, A.V.; Egypt for the land of Egypt, A.V. and T.R.; Canaan for Chanaan, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
Sent forth for sent out, A.V.; the first time for first, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
Race became manifest for kindred was made known, A.V. "Kindred" is a much better word here, because Joseph's "race" was already known to Pharaoh (Gen_41:12); "was made known" is a far better phrase than "became manifest."

The Pulpit Commentary
And Joseph sent for then sent Joseph, A.V.; called to him Jacob his father for called his father Jacob to him, A.V. Three score and fifteen souls. In Gen_46:26, Gen_46:27, the statement is very precise that "all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were three score and ten," including Joseph and his two sons. Moreover, the accuracy of the number is tested in two ways. First, the names of the sons and daughters of each patriarch are given, and they are found, on counting them, to amount to exactly seventy. And then the totals of the descendants of each of Jacob's four wives is given separately, and again the total is exactly seventy. It is true that the computation in Gen_46:26 does not agree with the above, for it makes the number of Jacob's descendants, exclusive of Joseph and his two sons, sixty-six instead of sixty-seven, which is the number according to the two above computations, and consequently the total number (when Joseph and his two sons are added) sixty-nine instead of seventy. But this is such a manifest contradiction that it seems almost a necessity to suppose a clerical error, שׁשֵׁ for עבַשֶׁ, caused perhaps by the preceding מישִׁשִׁ. It is also a singular anomaly that, in the enumeration of Leah's descendants, as well as in the general enumeration, Er and Onan are distinctly reckoned as well as mentioned. Jacob himself is nowhere reckoned in the Bible, though he is in the commentaries. But when we turn to the LXX., we find that in Gen_46:20 there are added to Manasseh and Ephraim Machir the son and Gilead the grandson of Manasseh; and Suthelah and Taam the sons, and Edom (meaning Eran, LXX. Eden, Num_26:36) the grandson, of Ephraim, making the descendants of Rachel eighteen (it should be nineteen if Huppim, Gen_46:21, is added) instead of fourteen; the number sixty-six of verse 26 is preserved; the number of Joseph's descendants is given as nine (Huppim apparently being now reckoned), which, added to sixty-six, makes seventy-five; and accordingly in verse 27 the LXX. read ψυχαὶ ἑβδομηκονταπέντε ("seventy-five souls"), instead of "three score and ten." But except in the addition of these five names of Joseph's grand and great-grand-children, the LXX. support the Hebrew text, even in the strange sixty-six of verse 26. Stephen, as a Hellenist, naturally follows the LXX. But the question arises—How are we to understand the lists? Gen_46:8 says, "These are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt;" and one naturally expects to find the names only of those who are described in Gen_46:5-7 as the migratory party from Canaan to Egypt. This expectation is somewhat disturbed by Er and Onan being included in the enumeration. This may, however, be accounted for by Pharez and Zerah being reckoned as their seed. But is it likely that Hezron and Hamul the sons of Pharez, and the other great-grandsons of Jacob, were born before the descent into Egypt? The answer to this is that, as Jacob was a hundred and thirty years old when he came down to Egypt (Gen_47:28), there is no improbability in his having great-grandchildren (allowing forty years for a generation); on the contrary, every likelihood that he should. But on the other hand, as Joseph could not have been above fifty when Jacob came down to Egypt, Gen_41:46, Gen_41:29, Gen_41:30, it does not seem likely or possible that Joseph should have had grown-up grandsons and a great-grandson, as the LXX. make him have. Indeed, to all appearance Manasseh and Ephraim were unmarried young men at the time that Jacob blessed them (Gen_48:11, Gen_48:16; Gen_50:23). Therefore we may conclude certainly that the additional numbers of the LXX. are incorrect, if understood literally, of these who came down with Jacob from Canaan to Egypt. But there is nothing improbable in Benjamin having ton children. Judah, to whom grandchildren are attributed, was Jacob's fourth son, and might be forty or fifty years older than Joseph and Benjamin. Asher, to whom also grandsons are attributed, was the eighth son, and might be twenty years older than Joseph and Benjamin. Still, considering that Er and Onan are reckoned among those who came down to Egypt, it would not be surprising to find that some of those mentioned in the list were born after Jacob's arrival, but included on some principle which we do not understand. In other words, a literal interpretation of the statement of the Hebrew Bible involves no impossibilities, but a literal interpretation of the statement of the LXX. does.

And for so, A.V.; he died, himself for died, he, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
And they were for and were, A.V.; unto Shechem for into Sychem, A.V., i.e. the Hebrew for the Greek form of the name (Gen_34:2); tomb for sepulcher, A.V.; a price in silver for a sum of money, A.V.; Hamor for Erect, A.V. (Hebrew for Greek form); in Shechem for the father of Sychem, A.V. and T.R. As regards the statement in the text, two distinct transactions seem at first sight to be mixed up. One, that Abraham bought the field of Machpelah of Ephron the Hittite for a burial-place, where he and Sarah, and Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah, were buried (Gen_24:16, Gen_24:17, Gen_24:19; Gen_25:9, Gen_25:10; Gen_35:27-29; Gen_49:29-31); the other, that Jacob "bought a parcel of a field …, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for an hundred pieces of money," where the bones of Joseph were buried by Joshua (Gen_33:19; Gen_50:25; Jos_24:32), and where, according to a tradition still surviving in the days of St. Jerome, the other patriarchs were also buried ('Epistol.'86," She came to Sichem, now called Neapolis (or Nablous), and from thence visited the tombs of the twelve patriarchs"). See also Jerome, 'De Optimo Genere Interpretandi.' All Jewish writers, however, are wholly silent" about this tradition, perhaps from jealousy of the Samaritans. And Josephus affirms that all but Joseph were buried at Hebron ('Ant. Jud.,'2. 8.2); and that their beautiful marble monuments were to be seen at Hebron in his day. In the cave of Machpelah, however, there is no tomb of any of the twelve patriarchs except Joseph; and his so-called tomb is of a different character and situation from the genuine ones. But on looking closer at the text it appears pretty certain that only Shechem was in Stephen's mind. For first he speaks of Shechem at once, And were carried over unto Shechem. And adds and were laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a price in silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem. Except the one word "Abraham," the whole sentence points to Shechem. What he says of Shechem is exactly in accordance with Gen_33:18, Gen_33:19. And what he says of their fathers being carried over and buried at Shechem is exactly true of Joseph's bones, as related in Jos_24:32. So that the one difficulty is the word "Abraham." It seems much more probable that this word should have been interpolated by some early transcriber, who saw no nominative case to ὠνήσατο, and who had in his mind a confused recollection of Abraham's purchase, than that Stephen, who shows such thorough knowledge of the Bible history, should have made a gross mistake in such a well-known and famous circumstance as the purchase of the field of Machpelah, or that Luke should have perpetuated it had he made it in the hurry of speech. It cannot be affirmed with certainty that Stephen confirms the story of the other patriarchs being buried at Shechem, though possibly he alludes to the tradition. The plural, "they were carried," etc., might be put generally, though only Joseph was meant (as Mat_27:44; Mat_26:8 compared with Luk_23:1-56. 39; Joh_12:4), or "the bones of Joseph" might possibly be the subject, though not expressed. Lightfoot—followed by Bishop Wordsworth, who thinks that Abraham really did buy a field of Ephron in Sychem, when he was there (Gen_12:6)-would thus be right in supposing that the point of Stephen's remark was that the patriarchs were buried in Shechem.

The Pulpit Commentary
As for when, A.V.; vouchsafed unto for had sworn to, A.V. and T.R. Vouchsafed; ὁμολογεῖν, in the sense of" to promise," as in Mat_14:7, and not unfrequently in Greek writers, for ὀμνύειν, to swear.

The Pulpit Commentary
Over Egypt, R.T.; there arose another king for another king arose, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
Race for kindred, A.V., as in Act_7:13; that they should cast out for so that they east out, A.V.; babes for young children, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
At which season for in which time, A.V.; he was nourished three months in his father's house for nourished up in his father's house three months, A.V. Exceeding fair (ἀστεῖος τῷ Θεῷ). In Exo_2:2 it is simply ἀστεῖος, "a goodly child," A.V., and so in Heb_11:23, rendered "a goodly child," "a proper child," A.V. Josephus ('Ant. Jud.,' 2. 9.5, 7) describes Pharaoh's daughter as captivated by the size and beauty of the child, and as speaking of him to Pharaoh as of Divine beauty. And Justin (quoted by Whitby) says that the beauty of his person was greatly in his favor.

The Pulpit Commentary
Instructed for learned, A.V.; he was mighty for was mighty, A.V.; in his words and works for in words and in deeds, A.V. and T.R. The statement of Moses being instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, though not found in Exodus, was doubtless true. Josephus makes Thermeutis speak of him as "of a noble understanding;" and says that he was "brought up with much care and diligence." And Philo, in his life of Moses(quoted by Whitby), says he was smiled in music, geometry, arithmetic, and hieroglyphics, and the whole circle of arts and sciences.

The Pulpit Commentary
Well-nigh for full, A.V. When he was precisely forty years old (Meyer) The exact meaning seems to be "when he was in the act of completing forty years." The account in Exo_2:11 only says, "When Moses was grown" (μέγας γενόμενος, LXX.); the age of forty years, and the number of years, forty, that he sojourned in Midian, as given below, verse 30, are traditional. "There are that say that Moses was forty years in Pharaoh's palace, forty years in Midian, and forty years in the wilderness" (Tauchum, in Exodus it.). "Moses was forty years in Pharaoh's court, and forty years in Midian, and forty years he served Israel" (Beresh. Rabb.), both quoted by Lightfoot ('Comment. and Exercitations upon the Acts'). The sum total of the three periods of forty years is given as the length of Moses' life, viz. a hundred and twenty years (Deu_34:7). Exo_2:24.—Smiting for and smote, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
And he supposed that his brethren understood for for he supposed that his brethren would have understood, A.V.; was giving them deliverance for would deliver them, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
The day following for the next day, A.V.; he appeared for be showed himself, A.V.

Wouldest for wilt, A.V.; killedst for diddest, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
And Moses fled for then fled Moses, A.V.; became a sojourner for was a stranger, A.V.; Midian for Madian, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
Fulfilled for expired, A.V.; an angel appeared for there appeared … an angel, A.V.; an angel for an angel of the Lord, A.V. and T.R.; Sinai for Sina, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
And when for when, A.V.; behold for behold it, A.V.; there came a voice of the Lord for the voice of the Lord came unto him, A.V. There came a voice. The A.V. is surely right. The Lord has only one voice; and φωνὴ Κυρίου is that voice. The grammatical effect of Κυρίου upon φωνὴ is to make it definite, as in ἄγγελος Κυρίου (see Act_5:19, note).

The Pulpit Commentary
Saying, A.V., is omitted; of Isaac and of Jacob for the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, A.V. and T.R.; and for then, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
And the Lord said unto him for then said the Lord to him, A.V.; loose the shoes for put off by shoes, A.V. Loose the shoes, etc. In Exo_3:5 it is λύσαι … ἐκ τῶν ποδῶν σου. Iamblichus, quoted by Meyer, refers the Pythagorean precept, "Sacrifice and worship with thy shoes off," to an Egyptian custom. The custom of Orientals to take off their sandals on entering mosques or other sacred places, as existing to the present day, is noticed by many travelers (see also Jos_5:15).

The Pulpit Commentary
I have surely seen (literally, seeing I have seen—the well-known Hebrew idiom for emphatic affirmation) for I have seen, I have seen, A.V.; have heard for I have heard, A.V.; and I am for and am, A.V., the change is in accordance with the A.V. of Exo_3:7, Exo_3:8.

The Pulpit Commentary
Him hath God sent for the same did God send, A.V.; both a ruler for a ruler, A.V. and T.R.; with the hand for by the hand, A.V. and T.R. (σὺν for ἐν), but giving no clear sense in English. The meaning seems to be that Moses was to rule and save with the strength given him by the angel But it is much simpler to take ἐν χειρὶ as equivalent to the common Hebrew phrase דיָבְ, meaning instrumentality, "by means of," "through," and to join it with "did send." The angel who spake to Moses in the bush in the Name of God was God's instrument in sending Moses. When an angel gives a message from God, the words are always given as spoken by God himself (see e.g. Jos_2:1-3). In this verse Stephen, having with great oratorical skill entranced their attention by his recital of God's marvelous revelation of himself to Moses, now takes them off their guard, and shews how their fathers treated Moses just as they had treated Jesus Christ; and how God in the case of Moses had chosen and magnified the very man whom they had scornfully rejected; just as now he had exalted Jesus Christ to be a Prince and a Savior, whom they had crucified.

The Pulpit Commentary
This man for he, A.V.; led them forth for brought them out, A.V.; having wrought for after that he had showed, A.V.; Egypt for the land of Egypt, A.V. and T.R.

The Pulpit Commentary
God for the Lord your God, A.V. and T.R.; from among for of, A.V. The R.T. omits the words him shall ye hear, which follow in Dent. Act_18:15, and seem to be referred to in Mat_17:5 (αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε). The addition of the words adds much to the point of Stephen's application (see above, Act_3:22).

The Pulpit Commentary
Sinai for Sins, A.V. (Hebrew for Greek form); living cracks for the lively cracks, A.V. In the church. St. Stephen probably used the word ἐκκλησία without any reference to its special meaning, "the Church." It is used in a secular sense in Act_19:32, Act_19:39, and of the congregation of Israel in the LXX. of 1Ch_13:2; 1 Macc. 2:56; Ecclesiasticus 44:15; and elsewhere. In Stephen's time it could hardly have become widely known as the designation of the flock of Christ. On the whole, the marginal rendering, "the congregation," seems best, but with the idea attached that it was the Lord's congregation. The angel which spake. It may be doubted whether the phrase, "the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai," refers to the angel spoken of in verse 30, or to the angel by whose mouth God spake the words of the ten commandments on Mount Sinai, as recorded in Exo_20:1-17; Deu_5:1-22. Chrysostom and most commentators seem to understand it of the angel who gave the Law; but Whitby, not without reason, thinks the reference is to the burning bush. Living oracles. In like manner, St. Paul calls the Holy Scriptures "the oracles of God" (Rom_3:2), and in Heb_5:12 we read again of "the first principles of the oracles of God," and St. Peter says, "Let him speak as the oracles of God" (1Pe_4:11). For the force of the living or lively oracles, see 1Pe_1:23, 1Pe_1:25. Stephen magnifies Moses by reminding his hearers how he had received the Law from God to give to the people.

The Pulpit Commentary
Obedient for obey, A.V.; turned back in their hearts unto Egypt for in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, A.V. Our fathers would not be obedient, though God had bestowed such signal marks of favor upon them. Turned back in their hearts. A striking instance of their rejection of God's chiefest mercies.

The Pulpit Commentary
Which shall go for to go, A.V.; led us forth for brought us, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
Brought a sacrifice for offered sacrifice, A.V. (see Exo_32:6, with which the A.V. agrees best); hands for own hands, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
But for then, A.V.; to serve for to worship, A.V.; did ye offer unto me slain beasts and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? for O ye house of Israel, have ye offered, etc., by the space of forty years in the wilderness? A.V. The passage which follows is nearly verbatim et literatim the LXX. of Amo_5:25, Amo_5:27, except the well-known substitution of "Babylon" for "Damascus" in Amos. This, according to Lightfoot, with whom most commentators agree, was in accordance with a very common practice of readers in the schools and pulpits of the Jews, to adapt and accommodate a text to their own immediate purpose, keeping, however, to historical truth. Here Stephen points to the Babylonish Captivity as the punishment of the sins of their fathers, thus warning them of more terrible judgments to follow their rejection of Christ.

The Pulpit Commentary
And for yea, A.V.; the god Rephan for your god Remphan, A.V. and T.R.; the figures for figures, A.V. The god Rephan. Rephan, or Raiphan, or Remphan, as it is variously written, is the LXX. translation of the Hebrew Chiun in Amo_5:26. The best explanation of this is that Rephan is the Coptic name of the planet Saturn, well-known of course to the LXX., and that Chiun is the Hebrew and Arabic name of the same star, which they therefore translated by Rephan. With regard to the difficulty which has been felt by many that there is no mention of any such worship of Moloch and Chiun in the wilderness, and that sacrifices were continually offered to the Lord, it seems to arise from an entire misconception of the passage in Amos. What Amos means to say is that because of the treacherous, unfaithful heart of Israel, as shown in the worship of the golden calf and all their rebellions in the wilderness, all their sacrifices were worthless. Just as he had said in Amo_5:22, "Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts;" "I hate, I despise your feast days; Take away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols" (Amo_5:21, Amo_5:23): just as Isaiah also says, "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? … I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts … Bring no more vain oblations; … it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting" (Isa_1:11-13, etc.); and again, "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood" (Isa_66:3): so all the sacrifices offered up during forty years in the wilderness were no sacrifices at all, and their hypocrisy was clearly seen when they reached the land of Canaan, and, according to Moses' prophetic declaration, "forsook God which made them … and sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not" (Deu_32:15-18), such as Chiun and Moloch, Baalim and Ashtoreth. This later idolatry was the fruit and the judicial punishment of their first declension and apostasy in the wilderness, and led to the Captivity in Babylon. It was on seeing their unfaithfulness in the wilderness that" God turned and gave them up to serve the host of heaven."

The Pulpit Commentary
The testimony for witness, A.V.; even as he appointed who spake for as he had appointed, speaking, A.V.; figure for fashion, A.V. Chrysostom calls attention to the mention of the wilderness, as showing that God's presence and service were not confined to Jerusalem.

The Pulpit Commentary
In their turn for that come after, (διαδεξάμενοι), A.V.; Joshua (the Hebrew form) for Jesus (the Greek form of the name), A.V.; when they entered on the possession of the nations for into the possession of the Gentiles, A.V.; which God thrust for whom God drave, A.V. In their turn; more literally, having received it in succession. It only occurs here in the New Testament. Meyer quotes 4 Macc. 4:15, "On the death of Seleucus, his son Antiochus received the kingdom in succession;" and classical writers. When they entered, etc. There are three ways of construing the words ἐν τῇ κατασχέσει τῶν ἐθνῶν—

(1) as the A.V., taking ἐν in the sense of εἰς, and making the phrase synonymous with the laud of Canaan, the land which the Gentiles then possessed;

(2) in (their) taking possession (of the land) of the Gentiles, i.e. when they took, taking κατάσχεσις in a transitive sense, which seems to be the sense of the R.V.:

(3) with Meyer, during the holdings or possession by the Gentiles of the land, that, viz. into which their fathers brought the tabernacle. The first seems the most simple and in accordance with the Greek of the New Testament, and with what follows of the expulsion of the nations before the Israelites.

The Pulpit Commentary
In the sight of for before, A.V. (ἐνώπιον); asked for desired, A.V.; habitation for tabernacle, A.V. (σκήνωμα). Habitation. In Deu_33:18 σκήνωμα stands in the LXX. for להֶאִ, and in 2Pe_1:13, 2Pe_1:5 :14, for the human body as the tabernacle or temporary dwelling of the soul or spirit. And the idea of a temporary or movable dwelling seems to suit Stephen's argument better than that of a fixed one. The תוֹנכָשְׁםִ of Psa_132:5 (to which perhaps, as well as 2Sa_7:1-6, Stephen refers) is equally applicable to a tent.

The Pulpit Commentary
A house for an house, A.V. The οἶκος (the house) of Act_7:47, which Solomon built, seems to be almost in contrast with the σκήνωμα (the tabernacle).

The Pulpit Commentary
Houses (in italics) for temples, A.V. and T.R. The word ναοῖς (here, but not in Act_17:24) is omitted in the R.T. In Isa_16:12. LXX. (quoted by Meyer), χειροποίητα (plural) is used without a substantive for the "sanctuary" (שׁוֹדּקְםִ) of Moab. For the sentiment that the infinite God, Creator of heaven and earth, cannot be contained in a house built by the hands of men, see also 2Ch_6:18, as well as the passages above quoted. Stephen justifies himself from the charge of having spoken blasphemous words against the temple by citing Isa_66:1.

The Pulpit Commentary
The heaven for heaven, A.V.; the earth the footstool of my feet for earth is my footstool, A.V.; what manner of house for what house, A.V.

Did not my hand make for hath not my hand made, A.V.

The Pulpit Commentary
Stiff-necked; hard of neck, inflexible. The word σκληροτράχηλος only occurs here in the New Testament. But it answers in the LXX. to the Hebrew פרֶעֹאהשֵׁקְ (hard of neck); see Exo_33:3, Exo_33:5, and elsewhere. In applying this expression to his hearers, Stephen was using the identical language of Moses when he conveyed God's rebuke to them. Considering that they professed to be standing on Moses' side against Stephen, this must have made his words doubly cutting to them. Uncircumcised in heart; ἀπερίτμητος only occurs here in the New Testament, but it is found in 2 Macc. 1:51; 2:46; and in the LXX. of Exo_12:48; Jdg_14:3; 1Sa_17:26, and elsewhere for the Hebrew לרֵעֹ. The word, in its application to his Jewish audience, contains a whole volume of rebuke. They prided themselves on their circumcision, they trusted in it as a sure ground of favor in the sight of God; but all the while they were on a level with the heathen whom they despised, and were to be reckoned among the uncircumcised whom they loathed. For they were without the true circumcision, that of the heart. Here again Stephen was teaching in the exact spirit and even words of Moses and the prophets. See Lev_26:1-46. 41; Deu_10:16 (where Stephen's two reproaches occur together); Jer_9:26; Eze_44:7; and many other passages. Compare the teaching of St. Paul (Rom_2:28, Rom_2:29; Php_3:2, Php_3:3; Col_2:11; and elsewhere).

The Pulpit Commentary
Did not … persecute for have not … persecuted, A.V.; killed for have slain, A.V.; righteous for just, A.V.; have now become for have been now, A.V.; betrayers for the betrayers, A.V. The close resemblance of Stephen's words to those of our Lord recorded in Luk_13:33, Luk_13:34; Mat_5:12; Mat_23:30, Mat_23:31, Mat_23:34-37, lend some support to the tradition that he was one of the seventy, and had heard the Lord speak them. But the resemblance may have arisen from the Spirit by which he spake, "the Spirit of Christ which was in" him.

The Pulpit Commentary
Ye who received for who have received, A.V.; as it was ordained by angels for by the disposition of angels, A.V.; kept it not for hove not kept it, A.V. Ordained by angels. This phrase, thus differently rendered (εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων), is one of extreme difficulty: διαταγή means properly appointment," or "ordinance," as in Rom_13:2; and εἰς, which has a great variety of uses in the Greek of the New Testament, means "at," or "upon," or "on the occasion of," as Mat_12:41, "At the preaching of Jonah." So here they received the Law "at" or "on the occasion of," the "ordering" or "appointing" of angels. When the angels, who were commissioned by God and spoke in his Name, gave the Law, the Israelites so received it. The A.V., "by the disposition of angels" very nearly expresses the true sense. Another sense of εἰς—"in view of"—comes to nearly the same thing. St. Paul speaks of the part taken by the angels in the giving of the Law, and in language strikingly resembling the text. He says of it, that it was "ordained through ['by,' A V] angels" God ordained or appointed the Law, but the angels were the instruments or ministers of its promulgation. And it is also distinctly referred to in Deu_33:2, where the LXX. read, "On his right hand the angels were with him." In the foregoing verses the application which Stephen had all through been contemplating is hurled with accumulated force at the consciences of his hearers, and cuts them to the heart, but does not bring them to repentance.

The Pulpit Commentary
Now when for when, A.V. They were cut to the heart (see Act_5:33 and notes).

The Pulpit Commentary
Looked up steadfastly (ἀτενίσας); see Act_6:15; Act_3:4, and note. The glory of God; i.e. the visible glory which surrounds and proclaims God's near presence (see Exo_24:10, Exo_24:16, Exo_24:17; Isa_6:1-3; Eze_1:28; Rev_21:14, Rev_21:23, etc.). Jesus standing. Sitting at the right hand of God is the usual attitude ascribed to our Lord in token of his victorious rest, and waiting for the day of judgment. Here he is seen standing, as rising to welcome his faithful martyr, and to place on his head the crown of life Rev_2:10). Whether Stephen saw these glorious things in the flesh or out of the flesh he probably knew not himself.

The Pulpit Commentary
The Son of man. Our Lord's usual designation of himself (see Mat_8:10; Mat_26:64; etc.; and also Dan_7:13), but nowhere but here spoken of Jesus by any other. £

But for then, A.V.; rushed for ran, A.V. (ὥρμησαν).

The Pulpit Commentary
They cast for cast, A.V.; garments for clothes, A.V.; the feet of a young man for a young man's feet, A.V.; named Saul for whose name was Saul, A.V. They cast. We have here the identical phrase of Luk_4:29. The witness. According to Deu_17:7, "the hands of the witnesses were to be first upon" the idolater "to put him to death." They took off their clothes, their outer garments, so as to be free to hurl the stones at their victim with greater force. The feet of a young man. The word νεανίας is found only here and in Act_20:9; Act_23:17, Act_23:18, Act_23:22; and frequently in the LXX. for the Hebrew רעִןַ. A man might be called a νεανίας probably to the age of thirty. This appearance of Saul upon the stage of St. Luke's narrative is an element which will soon change the whole current of the narrative, and divert it from Jerusalem to the whole earth. Nothing can be more striking than this introduction of the young man Saul to our view as an accomplice (albeit "ignorantly in unbelief") in the martyrdom of Stephen. Who that stood there and saw him keeping the clothes of the witnesses would have imagined that he would become the foremost apostle of the faith which he sought to destroy from off the face of the earth?

The Pulpit Commentary
The Lord (in italics) for God (in italics), A.V. The A.V. is certainly not justified by the context, because the words which follow, "Lord Jesus," show to whom the invocation was made, even to him whom he saw standing at the right hand of God. At the same time, the request, Receive my spirit, was a striking acknowledgment of the divinity of Christ. Only he who gave the spirit could receive it back again, and keep it safe unto the resurrection. Compare "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luk_23:46).

The Pulpit Commentary
Cried with a loud voice. Compare again Luk_23:46, and with Stephen's prayer, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge, compare Luk_23:34. He fell asleep. Blessed rest after life's toilsome day! Blessed contrast with the tumult of passion and violence which brought him down to the grave! How near, too, in his dying was that likeness to his Lord advanced, which shall be perfected at his appearing (1Jn_3:1)! "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, … that they may rest from their labors, and their works do follow them." St. Augustine attributes Saul's conversion to the prayer of Stephen: "Si Stephanus non orasset, Ecclesia Paulum non haberet."