Apostelgeschichte 7:24 Kommentar

When our Lord Jesus called his apostles out to be employed in services and sufferings for him, he told them that yet the last should be first, and the first last, which was remarkably fulfilled in St. Stephen and St. Paul, who were both of them late converts, in comparison of the apostles, and yet got the start of them both in services and sufferings; for God, in conferring honours and favours, often crosses hands. In this chapter we have the martyrdom of Stephen, the first martyr of the Christian church, who led the van in the noble army. And therefore his sufferings and death are more largely related than those of any other, for direction and encouragement to all those who are called out to resist unto blood, as he did. Here is, I. His defence of himself before the council, in answer to the matters and things he stood charged with, the scope of which is to show that it was no blasphemy against God, nor any injury at all to the glory of his name, to say that the temple should be destroyed and the customs of the ceremonial law changed. And, 1. He shows this by going over the history of the Old Testament, and observing that God never intended to confine his favours to that place, or that ceremonial law; and that they had no reason to expect he should, for the people of the Jews had always been a provoking people, and had forfeited the privileges of their peculiarity: nay, that that holy place and that law were but figures of good things to come, and it was no disparagement at all to them to say that they must give place to better things (v. 1-50). And then, 2. He applies this to those that prosecuted him, and sat in judgment upon him, sharply reproving them for their wickedness, by which they had brought upon themselves the ruin of their place and nation, and then could not bear to hear of it (Act 7:51-53). II. The putting of him to death by stoning him, and his patient, cheerful, pious submission to it (Act 7:54-60).

Then said the high priest,.... The Ethiopic version adds, "to him"; that is, to Stephen; for to him he addressed himself: or he "asked him", as the Syriac version renders it; he put the following question to him: are these things so? is it true what they say, that thou hast spoken blasphemous words against the temple, and the law, and hast said that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy the one, and change the other? what hast thou to say for thyself, and in thine own defence? this high priest was either Annas, or rather Caiaphas; See Gill on Act 4:6.

And seeing one of them suffer wrong,.... Beza's Cambridge copy, and one of Stephens's, and one in the Bodleian library add, "of his own kindred": and so Exo 2:11 he is said to be "one of his brethren"; which Aben Ezra explains, "of his family", one of the tribe of Levi; and so another Jewish writer (m) is very particular, and says, "Moses went out to the camp of the Israelites, and saw an Egyptian smite one of the sons of Kohath, who was of his brethren of the tribe of Levi, as it is said, Exo 2:11.'' This man, according to some of the Jewish writers (n), was the husband of Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, Lev 24:11 but, according to others, it was Dathan (o): the cause and manner of his suffering wrong was this, as they report (p); one of the taskmasters having set his eyes upon his wife, who was a beautiful woman, came early one morning, and got him out of his house to work, and then went into his wife, and lay with her; which when the man understood, he made some disturbance about it, for which he caused him to serve in very hard bondage, and beat him severely; who flying to Moses for protection, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed; he took his part, and screened him from the insults and blows of the officer, and avenged his cause: and smote the Egyptian; and killed him: it is commonly said by the Jews (q), that he killed him by the sword of his mouth, by making use of the word Jehovah; though others (r) say, he smote him with his fist, which is more likely; or rather with his sword; the Ethiopic version adds, "and buried him in the sand". Beza's ancient copy, and one of Stephens's, add, "and he hid him in the sand", as it is in Exo 2:12 and which the Jews understand not literally of any sand pit, into which he might cast him, and cover him; or of the sand of the sea, near which he was, and which does not appear; but mystically of the people of Israel, comparable to the sand of the sea, among whom he hid him. So in one of their Midrashes (s) it is observed on these words, "and "he hid him in the sand"; though there were none there but the Israelites---who are like to sand: he said unto them, ye are like the sand; take this man here and put him there, and his voice is not heard; so this thing will be hid among you, and not heard. And so you find that the thing was not heard but by the means of the Hebrews, as it is said, "and he went out on the second day, and two men of the Hebrews", &c.'' And another of their (t) writers, says, that when Moses saw the Egyptian smiting the Hebrew, "he began to curse him, and took the sword of his lips, and killed him, and hid him in the camp of the Israelites, as it is said, Exo 2:12 not in the sand, but among the Israelites: hence it is said, "the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea", Hos 1:10.'' To which may be added what one of their chronologers (u) affirms, that "Moses slew the Egyptian with the ineffable name of God, and hid him among the children of Israel, who are like to sand.'' This Egyptian is said, by Jarchi, to be one of the taskmasters who was appointed over the officers of Israel, who, from the cockcrowing, kept them to their work, which is very probable. (m) Pirke Eliezer, c. 48. (n) Jarchi in Exod. ii. 12. (o) Shemot Rabba, sect. 1. fol. 91. 4. Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 5. 2. (p) Shemot Rabba, & Shalshalet, ib. & Chronicon Mosis, fol. 5. 2. & Jarchi in Exod. ii. 12. (q) Pirke Eliezer, c. 48. Shalshalet, ib. Clement. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 344. (r) Shemot Rabba, ib. (s) Shemot Rabba, sect. 1. fol. 9l. 4. (t) Pirke Eliezer, c. 48. (u) R. Gedaliah, Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 5. 2.

"And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian: for he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not." See how up to this point he is not yet offensive to them; how they listened to him while he said all this. And "his face," we read, "was as the face of an angel." "For he supposed," etc. And yet it was by deeds that his championship was shown; what intelligence was there need of here? but still for all this "they understood not." For what though they killed him not actually? In intention they did kill, as did the others in the former case. There, they sold out of their own into a strange land: here, they drive from one strange land into another strange land: in the former case, one in the act of bringing them food; in this, one in the act of giving them good counsel; one to whom, under God, the man was indebted for his life! Mark how it shows the truth of that saying of Gamaliel's, "If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it." See the plotted-against eventually becoming the authors of salvation to those plotting against them: the people, plotting against itself, and itself plotted against by others; and for all this, saved! A famine, and it did not consume them: nor was this all: but they were saved by means of the very person, whom they had expected to be destroyed by their means. A royal edict, and it did not consume them: nay then most did their number increase, when he was dead "who knew" them. Their own Saviour they wished to kill, but for all that, they had not power to do it. Do you observe, that by the means whereby the devil tried to bring to naught the promise of God, by those very means it was advanced?

Moses killed the Egyptian, not moved by anger or wrath, but by zeal. For whatever is done for the sake of God's word is devoutness; and though it be murder when done for God, it is not murder. Now Phinehas, having slain two with one hand (Num. 15:7), was heard: "Phinehas has stood up and has made atonement, and the plague was stayed; and it was reckoned to him for righteousness." (Ps. 106:30) For the intention of a murderer and of a holy man is different, though the act be the same. Therefore the event through Moses was a sign that God was about to slay Egyptians through Moses and to save those called Israelites. Therefore much concerning Moses. This true discourse will again compose for us the supreme arrangement of contemplation that was in Christ.

For the Savior, seeing that those from Israel endured covetousness terribly (for Satan leapt upon them as though crushing them), had mercy and intended to free them. Having somehow killed the one destined to do wrong, he hid him in the earth, that is, he shut him up among the underworld into Hades. Therefore, having pre-locked Satan as it were into Hades, the Savior appeared as the champion of justice to those from Israel. But those on whom they were about to give thanks said, "This man does not cast out demons unless by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons." (Matt. 12:24) For this reason he also transferred from Judea into Galilee, just as Moses was transferred into the land of Midian, and he called together a contest from among the nations.

"Having struck down the Egyptian," Moses avenged the one being oppressed by him. He did not kill the Egyptian out of frenzy or anger, but out of zeal for God. And that which is done out of zeal for God, even if it be killing, is not murder. Here is what Moses heard from the Lord concerning Phinehas, who killed two with one hand: "Phinehas… took a spear in his hand. And he went after the Israelite into the tent, and thrust both of them through… and the plague was stayed from the children of Israel" (Num. 25:7–8). And what Moses did was an unsolved riddle, because it was a sign that through Moses God was going to destroy the Egyptians and save the Israelites.

Stephen, being permitted to answer for himself relative to the charge of blasphemy brought against him by his accusers, gives a circumstantial relation of the call of Abraham, when he dwelt in Mesopotamia, in Charran, etc., Act 7:1-8. The history of Jacob and Joseph, Act 7:9-17. The persecution of their fathers in Egypt, Act 7:18, Act 7:19. The history of Moses and his acts till the exodus from Egypt, vv. 20-37. The rebellion and idolatry of the Israelites in the wilderness, Act 7:38-43 The erection of the tabernacle of witness, which continued till the time of David, Act 7:44-46. Of the temple built by Solomon for that God who cannot be confined to temples built by hands, Act 7:47-50. Being probably interrupted in the prosecution of his discourse, he urges home the charge of rebellion against God, persecution of his prophets, the murder of Christ, and neglect of their own law against them, Act 7:51-53. They are filled with indignation, and proceed to violence, Act 7:54. He sees the glory of God, and Christ at the right hand of the Father; and declares the glorious vision, Act 7:55, Act 7:56. They rush upon him, drag him out of the city, and stone him, Act 7:57, Act 7:58. He involves the Lord Jesus, prays for his murderers, and expires, Act 7:59, Act 7:60.

Smote the Egyptian - See this explained, Exo 2:11, Exo 2:12 (note).

DEFENSE AND MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN. (Acts 7:1-60) The God of glory--A magnificent appellation, fitted at the very outset to rivet the devout attention of his audience; denoting not that visible glory which attended many of the divine manifestations, but the glory of those manifestations themselves, of which this was regarded by every Jew as the fundamental one. It is the glory of absolutely free grace. appeared unto our father Abraham before he dwelt in Charran, and said, &c.--Though this first call is not expressly recorded in Genesis, it is clearly implied in Gen 15:7 and Neh 9:7; and the Jewish writers speak the same language.

avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian--going farther in the heat of his indignation than he probably intended.