Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 7

CHAPTER 7

Introduction

This chapter contains Stephen's defence before the Sanhedrin, or great council of the Jews. There has been great diversity of opinion about the object Stephen had in view in this defence, and about the reason why he introduced the history of the Jewish people at such length.

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 everything 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 topic 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. Compare Psalm 78, Psalms 105, Psalms 106, Psalms 135, Ezekiel 20.

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 (Acts 7:53–54), and it is therefore difficult to tell what Stephen's design 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 (Acts 7:51–52). There is also some probability that he intended to show that the acceptable worship of God was not to be confined to any particular place.

This is suggested by the fact that the worship of Abraham, the patriarchs, and Moses was acceptable before the temple was built (Acts 7:2 and following), and from the declaration in Acts 7:48, 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. 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 how 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. That 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 in the address, as some critics have pretended, 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 Matthew 2:4.

In this case, the high priest seems to have presided in the council.

Are these things so? Namely, the charge alleged against him of blasphemy against Moses and the temple (Acts 6:13–14).

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 give 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, splendor, or magnificence; and the word glory is often applied to the splendid appearances in which God has manifested himself to men (Deuteronomy 5:24; Exodus 33:18; Exodus 16:7, 10; Leviticus 9:23; Numbers 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, etc. In what manner he appeared is not said. In Genesis 12:1, it is simply recorded that God had said to Abraham, etc.

To our father. The Jews placed great value on being the children of Abraham. See Barnes' notes on Matthew 3:9.

This expression was therefore well calculated to conciliate their minds.

When he was in Mesopotamia. In Genesis 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 Barnes' notes on Acts 2:9.

The name is Greek, and the region also had other names before the Greek name was given to it. In Genesis 11:31 and Genesis 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 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 Genesis 11:31, it would seem that Terah took his son Abraham of his own accord and removed to Haran.

But from Genesis 12:1 and Genesis 15:7, 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 (Genesis 11:31). This place was also in Mesopotamia, at 36°52' North latitude and 39°5' East longitude.

Here Terah died (Genesis 11:32), and to this place Jacob retired when he fled from his brother Esau (Genesis 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.

And said to him. How long this was said to him before he went is not recorded. Moses simply says that God had commanded him to go (Genesis 12:1).

Your kindred. Your relatives, or family connections. It seems that Terah went with him as far as Haran; but Abraham was informed that he was to leave his family, and to go almost alone.

Into the land, etc. The country was still unknown. The place was to be shown to him. This is presented in the New Testament as a strong instance of faith (Hebrews 11:8–9). 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 where 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 14:33; Matthew 19:27, 29).

The trials Abraham might have anticipated can be readily imagined. He was going, in a rough and barbarous age of the world, into a land of strangers. He was without weapons 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 so his conduct illustrated precisely what we are to do in all the future—regarding all our coming life and the eternity before us—we are to trust simply to the promise of God and do what 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 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 him to act that way, but where he did not see the reason.

So it is 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 for things are often concealed, and man is required to act on the belief that God sees reasons why he should act that way. To 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 Barnes on Mark 16:16).

Land of the Chaldaeans. From Ur of the Chaldees, Genesis 11:31.

When his father was dead. This passage has given rise to no small difficulty in interpretation. The difficulty is this: From Genesis 11:26, it would seem that Abraham was born when Terah was seventy years of age—And Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. From Genesis 12:4, it seems that Abraham was seventy-five years of age when he departed from Haran to Canaan. The age of Terah was therefore only one hundred and forty-five years. Yet, in Genesis 11:32, it is said that Terah was two hundred and five years old when he died, thus leaving sixty years of Terah's life beyond the time when Abraham left Haran.

Various methods have been proposed for resolving this difficulty.

1. Errors in numbers are more likely to occur than any other type of error. In the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch, it is said that Terah died in Haran at the age of one hundred and five years, which would suppose that his death occurred forty years before Abraham left Haran. However, the Hebrew, Latin Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic read it as two hundred and five years.

2. It is not affirmed that Abraham was born exactly when Terah was seventy years of age. All that the passage in Genesis 11:26 proves, according to the usual meaning of similar expressions, is that Terah was seventy years old before he had any sons, and that the three were born subsequent to that.

   However, which son was born first, or how long the intervals were between their births, is not apparent. It certainly does not mean that all were born precisely when Terah was seventy years of age. Nor does it appear that Abraham was the eldest of the three. The sons of Noah are said to have been Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 5:32); yet Japheth, though mentioned last, was the eldest (Genesis 10:21). As Abraham later became by far the most distinguished, and as he was the father of the Jewish people about whom Moses was writing, it was natural that he should be mentioned first. If it cannot be proved that Abraham was the eldest—as it certainly cannot be—then there is no improbability in supposing that his birth might have occurred many years after Terah was seventy years of age.

3. The Jews unanimously affirm that Terah relapsed into idolatry before Abraham left Haran, and this they call death, or a moral death.—Kuinoel. It is certain, therefore, that for some reason they were accustomed to speak of Terah as dead before Abraham left him. Stephen only used language that was customary among the Jews and would doubtless use it correctly, though we may not be able to see precisely how it can be reconciled with the account in Genesis.

And he gave him none inheritance. Abraham led a wandering life; and this passage means that he did not himself receive a permanent possession or residence in that land. The only land which he owned was the field which he purchased from the children of Heth, for a burial-place, Genesis 23. As this was obtained by purchase, and not by the direct gift of God, and as it was not designed for a residence, it is said that God gave him no inheritance. It is mentioned as a strong instance of his faith, that he should remain there without a permanent residence himself, with only the prospect that his children, at some distant period, would inherit it.

Not so much as to set his foot on. This is a proverbial expression, denoting in an emphatic manner that he had no land, Deuteronomy 2:5.

Would give it to him. Genesis 13:15. Abraham did not himself possess all that land; and the promise is evidently equivalent to saying that it should be conferred on the family of Abraham, or the family of which he was the father, without affirming that he should himself personally possess it. It is true, however, that Abraham himself afterwards dwelt many years in that land as his home, Genesis 13 and following.

For a possession. To be held as his own property.

When as yet he had no child. When there was no human probability that he would have any posterity. Compare Genesis 15:2-3 and 18:11-12.

This is mentioned as a strong instance of his faith: Who against hope believed in hope,Romans 4:18.