Acts 7:1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
The high priest’s question served to interrupt the astonishment of the onlookers as they beheld Stephen’s countenance, but it was normal to the opening of a formal trial, and analogous to the question put to the Lord (
Matt. 26:62).
The accused was called upon to plead guilty or not guilty, and Stephen’s defense follows.
Acts 7:2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
Stephen’s reply was a declaration of faith. It was also an indictment of his accusers. See Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 1.
Men, brethren, and fathers.
Stephen’s address is dignified, yet on a more familiar basis than Peter’s (cf.
ch. 4:8). The accused man addresses the Jewish leaders as brethren, and pays respect to the elders. Paul used the same words when he addressed the throng from the castle stairs (
ch. 22:1).
Literally,
“God of the glory,” that is, the God manifested to Israel in the glory of the pillars of cloud and fire and of the Shekinah (
Ex. 13:21, 22; Ex. 40:34, 35). The glory of God is His character (see on
Ex. 34:6). This was impressively revealed in the life and work of Jesus Christ (see on
Isa. 40:5; John 1:14; cf.
James 2:1). The phrase
“God of glory” forms a wise opening to Stephen’s speech. It rebuts the charge of blasphemy and prepares the way for a fresh concept of the God whom the Jews claimed to worship.
Showing that God manifested Himself before the Temple existed. Genesis lists five manifestations to Abraham, aside from those connected with the calls to leave his family and homeland (
chs. 12:1-3; 15:7): the promise (
ch. 12:7), the covenant (
ch. 13:14-17), the covenant sealed (
ch. 15), the covenant of circumcision (
ch. 17:10), the covenant renewed at Mamre (
ch. 18:1).
Literally,
“between the rivers,” the name used for the country lying between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (cf. on
Gen. 24:10). Stephen seems to limit the name to the southern area, above the Persian Gulf. The ancestral home of Abraham is called
“Ur of the Chaldees” (
Gen. 11:31; see
Acts 7:4), and is spoken of as
“on the other side of the flood” (
Joshua 24:2, 3), that is, beyond the Euphrates. The site of Ur has not yet been identified with certainty.
The Greek form of the OT Haran (see on
Gen. 11:31). Stephen appears to separate Haran from Mesopotamia, although the city was actually in the northwestern part of what is loosely called Mesopotamia.
Acts 7:3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
Stephen quotes from
Gen. 12:1, but omits
“from thy father’s house,” probably because he applies the passage to Abraham’s departure with his father’s household from Ur, whereas Genesis refers it to Abraham’s leaving his relatives at Haran.
Acts 7:4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
Approximately the land of Babylonia (see on
Gen. 10:22).
When his father was dead.
For a discussion of the relationship between this statement and
Gen. 11:26, 32; 12:1 see on
Gen. 11:26. Terah died at the age of 205 years; Abraham was then 75 years old.
That is, God removed Abraham, or caused him to migrate. The Greek is less vague than the English. The change of subject (cf.
ch. 6:6) may be noted as more natural in a speaker than a writer. This supports the view that
ch. 7 is an actual report of Stephen’s speech.
Acts 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.
This fact is confirmed rather than challenged by Abraham’s purchase of a burial site in Machpelah (
Gen. 23), for the possession of a grave site can hardly be called an inheritance. Indeed, if he had acquired a possession, he would not have needed to buy a grave site. He made use of the largely unoccupied grazing lands of central and southern Canaan for his large herds of cattle, but such land was not exclusively his, and was certainly not an inheritance.
The phrase literally reads, “not even a foot’s breadth.”
Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran (
Gen. 12:4), and was 100 years old when Isaac was born (
Gen. 21:5).
Acts 7:6 And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.
Referring to both Canaan and Egypt (see on
Gen. 15:13).
Acts 7:7 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.
With the natural freedom of narrative Stephen combines the promise to Abraham with a free rendering of the promise given to Moses (
Ex. 3:12).
Acts 7:8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.
The covenant of circumcision.
That is, a covenant of which circumcision was the sign (see on
Gen. 17:10-14).
The birth of Isaac constituted objective evidence that God indeed would fulfill His covenant with Abraham. By circumcising Isaac, Abraham continued to fulfill his responsibilities under the same covenant.
For the term, see on
ch. 2:29. Here the expression is applied to the twelve sons of Jacob, each of whom was the founder of a family.
Acts 7:9 And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was with him,
The record is that his brethren
“hated him” (
Gen. 37:4, 5) and
“envied him” (
v. 11). This is the first step in Stephen’s argument that the messengers of God have always been opposed by those who were for a given time representatives of the Hebrew nation.
Actually Joseph was sold to the Midianites and Ishmaelites (
Gen. 37:25, 28), but since the result was Joseph’s enslavement in Egypt, objection to Stephen’s phrasing is trivial. Joseph himself said to his brethren,
“Ye sold me hither” (
Gen. 45:5).
Rather,
“and God.” This reflects the account in
Gen. 39:2, 21, 23. God’s presence is not limited, for the Lord was with Joseph even in heathen Egypt. Remembrance of this fact must have brought comfort to Stephen during his trial.
Acts 7:10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.
Gr. exaireō, “to pluck out,” “to choose out,” “to rescue.” The deliverance of Joseph was not out of Egypt, but out of his afflictions in Egypt. Thus it is with God’s deliverance of His people. God gives them strength to triumph over their troubles and afflictions.
Acts 7:11 Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Chanaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance.
Rather,
“could not find sustenance.” The word translated
“sustenance” is generally used for
“fodder” for cattle (see LXX of
Gen. 24:25, 32). But more than food for cattle was affected by the famine, and therefore the term must be taken as applying to food for both man and beast.
Acts 7:12 But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first.
Gr. sitia, “food,” “provisions.” “Corn,” or a small hard grain such as wheat, is sitos. This is not the “corn” of North America, which is properly called “maize.”
That is, the ten sons whom Jacob first sent into Egypt (
Gen. 42:1-3). If Stephen is doing more here than developing a historical sequence, he is seeking to show that the very ones who afflicted Joseph came to be dependent upon the bounty resulting from his wisdom. And so the Jews of Stephen’s day must needs turn for their spiritual sustenance to Jesus Christ, whom they have afflicted.
Acts 7:13 And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph’s kindred was made known unto Pharaoh.
This phrase appears twice in this verse in the KJV. In the second instance, the Greek original is different and should be translated “became manifest.”
Gr.
genos,
“race.” Joseph had not sought to conceal his Hebrew origin (
Gen. 41:12), but until this crisis it was not generally known. Now Pharaoh himself was aware of it (
Gen. 45:16).
Acts 7:14 Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.
Threescore and fifteen souls.
See on
Gen. 47:26, 27. There are many Jewish traditions as to the number who went down into Egypt (see Talmud
Baba Bathra 123a, 123b, Soncino ed., pp. 511, 512).
Acts 7:15 So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers,
Now begins the 215-year sojourn (see on
Gen. 15:13; Ex. 12:40) of the Hebrews in Egypt, away from the Land of Promise.
Rather, “and he died, himself.” Some commentators take this as referring to Joseph rather than to Jacob.
Acts 7:16 And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.
Apart from the burial of the bones of Joseph in Shechem (
Gen. 50:25; Ex. 13:19; Joshua 24:32) there is no record in Scripture of the carrying of the bodies of the patriarchs to Canaan. Josephus says,
“Their bodies were carried some time afterwards by their descendants [and their sons] to Hebron and buried there” (
Antiquities ii. 8. 2 [199]; Loeb ed., vol. 4, p. 251). An ancient Jewish tradition has the bodies of the patriarchs carried out from the land of Egypt with the departing Israelites.
This Sychem is the Shechem of the OT (see on
Gen. 12:6).
Abraham’s purchase of the cave of Machpelah, to the east of Mamre, near Hebron, is the only recorded transaction of this kind (see on
Gen. 23:3-20). Here Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, and Leah were buried. However, the region of Shechem was the place of Abraham’s first settlement upon his entrance into Canaan, and there he built an altar (
Gen. 12:6, 7). It may be that he bought land for that purpose, although there is no record of the purchase.
Jacob’s purchase of the field at Shechem is the only recorded transaction in which the sons of Hamor appear as sellers (
Gen. 33:19). Here an altar was erected (
Gen. 33:20), and Joseph’s bones were buried, but there is no record of its being a burial place for his brothers (
“our fathers,” Acts 7:15). Jerome, a Christian writer of the 4th century, states (86th Epistle, Benedictine ed.) that the tombs of the 12 patriarchs were shown at Shechem in his day, and this corresponds to a Samaritan tradition preserved for many centuries. This may coincide with information available to Stephen but unknown to us today.
The Greek form of the OT Hamor.
Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the reading “in Sychem [Shechem].”
Acts 7:17 But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt,
Rather, “but as,” suggesting that the time was approaching rather than that it had arrived.
That is, the time of its fulfillment, in the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt (see on
Gen. 15:13, 14; Ex. 12:40; see Vol. I, pp. 188-195). The fathers
“all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off” (
Heb. 11:13).
Rather, “was drawing nigh,” harmonizing with “but as.”
Rather, “had vouch-safed.”
Acts 7:18 Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph.
Textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for adding the words
“over Egypt.” Not simply an additional king, but a different kind of king (see on
Ex. 1:8), and certainly having a different attitude toward the Hebrews.
Rather,
“had not known.” This may mean that the new ruler was ignorant of Joseph’s great services to Egypt, or that he deliberately ignored them (cf. the use of
“to know” in
Matt. 7:23; 25:12).
Acts 7:19 The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.
An archaic expression for “treated badly.” Josephus (Antiquities ii. 9. 1 [203]) says that the Egyptians made the Israelites cut channels and dikes for the Nile.
Rather,
“in causing their young children to be cast out.” The phrase refers to what Pharaoh did to the hated Hebrews (see on
Ex. 1:22).
Acts 7:20 In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father’s house three months:
While infants were being exposed.
Literally,
“fair to God” (see on
Ex. 2:2). Josephus (
ibid. 9. 6 [231]) describes the beauty of the infant Moses as such that those who met him turned to look upon him in admiration.
Acts 7:21 And when he was cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son.
Jochebed, the mother of Moses, fulfilled the king’s command and, at the same time, executed her own plan (see on
Ex. 2:3).
Literally,
“lifted him up,” referring either to Moses’ being taken out of the Nile, or more likely, to his being adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter. The root form of the verb means
“to choose,” and is so used in
Phil. 1:22. Its force is made clear in the next phrase.
See on
Ex. 2:5, 10. Josephus (
ibid. ii. 9. 7 [232-237]) declares that according to Jewish tradition the then-ruling Pharaoh had no son, and Moses was selected to be the heir.
Acts 7:22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.
Rather, “trained,” or “instructed.” The OT does not plainly state this, but it is implied in Moses’ relationship to the household of Pharaoh.
See on
Ex. 2:11; 1 Kings 4:30. There are many legends about the first 40 years of Moses’ life. Philo (
Life of Moses i. 5) claims to give details concerning the curriculum Moses followed, but the Bible is silent on the subject.
This primarily applies to Moses’ speech while the great leader was in the Egyptian court, and involves no conflict with his later statement, “I am not eloquent, ...
I am slow of speech” (see on
Ex. 4:10), which was uttered after his 40-year sojourn in Midian.
There is no Biblical record of his deeds, but it would be strange if one who proved so able in later life had not also shown great gifts during early manhood (see on
Ex. 2:11).
Acts 7:23 And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.
Literally,
“when a time of forty years was being fulfilled for him,” that is, when he was about forty years old. The OT gives no information about his age at this juncture. It indicates that Moses was 80 years old when he was sent to Pharaoh (
Ex. 7:7), and that he was 120 when he died (
Deut. 34:7). Ancient Jewish tradition divides Moses’ life into three 40-year periods (Midrash Rabbah, on
Gen. 50:22, Soncino ed., p. 1001), and Stephen follows a similar division:
(1) the 40 years in Egypt,
(2) the 40 years as a shepherd in the wilderness,
(3) the 40 years in which he led his people from Egypt to the borders of Canaan.
Acts 7:24 And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian:
Literally, “wrought an avenging,” and thereby undertook what should have been left to the Lord.
Acts 7:25 For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.
Rather, “but he was supposing,” even as he slew the Egyptian. He took for granted that the Hebrews would understand his deed and its motives. He was quickly disillusioned. This insight into the mind of Moses is not drawn from the OT, but could have been given to Stephen by the Holy Spirit. The speaker may also be suggesting a comparison between Moses and Jesus, who were both rejected by the people whom they sought to help.
Apparently it had been revealed to Moses that he was to deliver Israel, but he was under the misapprehension that the work was to be accomplished by the same sort of means the Egyptians commonly used to enforce their power.
A terse but effective phrase, highlighting the obtuseness of the chosen people. God’s people too often do not understand, and are unready for, God’s acts of deliverance (cf. the Jewish attitude toward Christ,
John 1:11).
Acts 7:26 And the next day he shewed himself unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?
That is, two men of the Hebrews (
Ex. 2:13).
Literally, “was bringing them into peace,” that is, was reconciling them.
Rather, “men.” His newly awakened fraternal feeling is so strong that Moses seems unable to tolerate anything less than a brotherly unity among the Hebrews as they suffer together.
Acts 7:27 But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?
As shown in
v. 35, Stephen stresses this early challenge of Moses’ authority to show that the whole history of Israel had been marked by the rejection of God’s messengers, who had been sent for the good of the nation. The rejection of Jesus was the climatic rejection.
Acts 7:28 Wilt thou kill me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday?
Acts 7:29 Then fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, where he begat two sons.
Stephen’s quick survey passed over the fact that Pharaoh became aware of what had happened, and was searching for Moses. Josephus (Antiquities ii. 11. 1 [254-256]) assigns the flight of Moses to the jealousy of the Egyptians, who feared that he would lead a revolt.
Literally, “became a sojourner,” that is, an alien.
Gr.
Madiam, for Heb.
Midyan,
“Midian” (see on
Ex. 2:15, 16).
Gershom and Eliezer. The mother was Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro (see on
Ex. 4:20; 18:2-4).
Acts 7:30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
With the 40 years mentioned in
v. 23, this makes Moses 80 years of age when he was called to deliver Israel (see on
Ex. 7:7).
The OT form is
“Sinai,” which is often called
“Horeb” (see on
Ex. 3:1).
Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of the words
“of the Lord.” Stephen’s reference to Moses’ experience at the burning bush was indirectly an answer to the charge that he spoke against Moses, for he is here giving him full honor as one who had personal experience with his God. For the identification of the angel as the Lord see on
Ex. 3:2.
Gr. batos, “a thornbush,” or “bramblebush.” It is not possible to identify this bush accurately.
Acts 7:31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,
Acts 7:32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold.
Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of
“the God of” before the names Isaac and Jacob. If, as tradition declares, Stephen had been one of the Seventy (see on
ch. 6:5), he doubtless had heard these words cited by the Lord as witnessing against the unbelief of the Sadducees concerning the resurrection (
Matt. 22:32).
If any of those Sadducees were in the council, they would have been reminded of the citation as Stephen addressed them. The majestic words would bring to their minds the promise of the resurrection, and its demonstration in the raising of Jesus from the dead.
Acts 7:33 Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.
In
Ex. 3 this command quite logically comes before God identifies Himself to Moses, who would hardly have needed instruction when once he recognized God’s presence. Stephen’s use of this experience would emphasize his true respect for holy places, and show that God’s presence was not limited to the precincts of the Jerusalem Temple (see on
Ex. 3:5).
Acts 7:34 I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.
The repetition of this phrase is a reflection, in Greek, of an emphatic Hebrew construction, and is well rendered
“I have surely seen” in
Ex. 3:7. This verse is an abbreviated and composite quotation taken from
Ex. 3:7, 8, 10.
Stephen may have used the present verse to suggest to his hearers the way in which Christ, like Moses, had been sent in answer to prayer to relieve affliction and to deliver His people (see on
v. 35).
Acts 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
This passage is phrased to emphasize that it was Moses who was the honored one to whom the Lord had appeared.
Here again is emphasis upon the rejection of Moses by the Hebrew people, although he was so well attested as a messenger of God. Perhaps Stephen implied that his hearers were acting similarly in rejecting Jesus Christ.
Gr.
lutrōtēs,
“liberator,” “redeemer.” This word is not found elsewhere in the NT, but it appears in the LXX as a translation of the Hebrew term
go’el (see on
Ps. 19:14; cf. on
Ruth 2:20). Thus, while it has the basic sense of
“liberator,” in Biblical usage it carries the overtones of meaning associated with the Hebrew idea of the kinsmanredeemer. Moses liberated, and so redeemed, his people from Egypt, but Christ liberates, redeems, His people from sin and death.
By the hand of the angel.
Literally,
“with the hand of an angel.” The word
“with” stresses that Moses’ work was done in cooperation with the heavenly powers. For the identity of the angel see on
Ex. 3:2; cf. on
Acts 7:30.
Acts 7:36 He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.
Moses was able to do this, having God’s power with him (see on
Ex. 3:12).
This is the name given by the Greeks to the water the Hebrews called the Sea of Reeds (see on
Ex. 10:19). The reason for either name cannot be definitely ascertainead.
Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
Stephen, like Peter (see on
ch. 3:22), refers to the prophecy given in
Deut. 18:15-18. Like Peter, he sees it fulfilled in Jesus. He is now intent on confronting the Sanhedrin with this Prophet in the person of the Jesus whom they had crucified.
Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for the omission of these words. However, they are well attested in the quotation of the same passage in
ch. 3:22.
Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
The reference is still to Moses.
Gr.
ekklēsia,
“assembly,” or
“congregation” (see on
Matt. 18:17).
Stephen has in mind the assembling of the Hebrew nation at Mt. Sinai prior to the giving of the law (
Ex. 19).
As in
v. 35, the angel is the Lord Himself, even as in
v. 31 the voice that spoke is called
“the voice of the Lord.”
Gr.
logia zōnta,
“living oracles.” Logia is the diminutive of
logos,
“word.” In the LXX it is used for the words of God (
Num. 24:4, 16), and in Philo (see Vol. V, p. 93) for the Decalogue. In the KJV,
logia is translated
“oracle” (
Rom. 3:2; Heb. 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11). Here, the reference is to the law received by Moses and passed on to succeeding generations. These oracles are described as
“lively,” that is, living, in the sense that they abide and endure from generation to generation (cf.
Heb. 4:12; 1 Peter 1:23).
Acts 7:39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,
Literally,
“were not willing to become obedient.” This rebellion by the children of Israel broke out one month after their deliverance at the Red Sea, and before they reached Sinai (
Ex. 16:2, 3). While Moses was in the mount their discontent led to apostasy (
Ex. 32:1), as outlined by Stephen in succeeding verses. By inference, he is presenting a parallel between the Israelites’ attitude toward Moses, and the Jews’ attitude toward Christ. The people of both eras were disobedient to their would-be redeemer. For obedience see on
Acts 5:32.
They did not actually return, but longed for the so-called good things they had enjoyed in the country of their captivity (see on
Ex. 16:3; cf. on
Num. 11:4-6). So Lot’s wife looked back to Sodom and died (
Gen. 19:26). The Lord condemns the man, who, having put his hand to the plow, looks back (
Luke 9:62).
Acts 7:40 Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
See on
Ex. 32:1. Stephen shows how their lack of faith in Moses’ leadership led the Israelites to one of the worst forms of sin—idolatry.
Acts 7:41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.
See on
Ex. 32:4, 5. The Hebrews had probably seen the Egyptians worshipping the bull Mnevis at Heliopolis or the bull Apis at Memphis, and desired a similar beast-image to represent the great God of the universe.
The Hebrews claimed that the golden calf was a god (see
Ex. 32:4), but Stephen rightly calls it an
“idol.”
Rather,
“were rejoicing,” that is, they continued in their idol worship and its accompanying orgies. The verb especially expresses the joy of a feast, as in
Luke 15:23, 24, 29 (cf. on
Ex. 32:5, 6). Moses heard, not the cries of conflict, but
“the noise of them that sing” (
Ex. 32:18).
Works of their own hands.
Not only is the worship of an image a denial of God, but, what is worse, it sets up a man-made object in His place. The idolater turns his back upon his Maker, and bows down, instead, to that which he himself has made. See
Hosea 6:6.
Acts 7:42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?
Rather,
“But God turned.” Israel had turned from Moses, God’s representative, and now God turns from them (cf.
Joshua 24:20). Men have come to a fearful state when God must give them up (see on
Hosea 4:17; 5:6). It is this appalling condition that Paul describes in
Rom. 1:24, 26, 28.
Gr. latreuō, “to serve for hire,” and, by extension, “to render religious service,” “to worship.”
The book of the prophets.
That is, the prophets of the OT (see on
Luke 24:44). The Jews generally considered the writings of the twelve so-called minor prophets one book. Stephen, following the general custom, does not identify the author of his quotation.
Rather, with the emphasis of the Greek word order,
“Did ye offer unto me slain beasts and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?” The quotation is, with minor changes, from the LXX of
Amos 5:25, 26. In terms of historical fact, the question is to be answered in the affirmative, for sacrifices were offered to God during the wilderness wanderings. But spiritually, the answer is in the negative, for many of the people, though making the sacrifices, were also worshipping false gods, and the Lord rejected their divided worship.
Acts 7:43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
Rather,
“and ye took up.” This verse is a quotation, with a few variations, from
Amos 5:26 as it appears in the LXX, which at this point is quite different from the Masoretic Hebrew text. The passage connects Israel’s unacceptable worship and their devotion to idols. In their wanderings Israel should have
“taken up” only the tabernacle of the Lord, but too often they also
“took up” the tabernacle, or tent, housing a heathen image.
Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 10) among the readings Rhemphan, Rhempham, Rhempha, Rhompha, Rhaiphan, and Rhephan. The LXX of
Amos 5:26, from which this verse is taken, has Rhaiphan, which appears to have been taken as equivalent to the Hebrew
Kywn, or
Kîyyûn (KJV,
“Chiun”), supposed by many scholars to be a Hebrew term for the planet Saturn of which Rhaiphan was the Coptic, or Egyptian, name. But no Egyptian word similar to the Greek term is known. However, Amos, whom Stephen quotes, clearly condemns star worship. Hence Stephen stands fully justified in condemning the ancient Jews as idolaters.
In
Amos 5:26, from which the present verse is quoted, both the Hebrew and the LXX give
“Damascus.” Up to the time of Amos, Syria, represented by Damascus, had been a serious enemy of both Israel and Judah. The Babylonian captivity had not then taken place, but as Stephen looks back, it is Babylon that stands out as the archenemy of the Jews, and doubtless for that reason he, by inspiration, substituted
“Babylon” for
“Damascus.” In
vs. 37-43 Stephen has pointed out the apostasies of the Hebrews, who turned against God by turning against Moses, and in Stephen’s own day turned against God by turning against Jesus.
Acts 7:44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
The clause reads literally,
“even as he appointed who spake unto Moses.” See on
Ex. 25:8, 9.
According to the fashion.
Rather,
“according to the pattern,” as in
Heb. 8:5 (see on
Ex. 25:9). Stephen’s argument implies that the heavenly sanctuary is the important and central institution, and thus emphasizes the temporary nature of the tabernacle as the focal point in the worship of God.
Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
Gr. diadechomai, “to receive in turn,” that is, they inherited the tabernacle from their fathers. It was the generation following that of the Exodus that took the tabernacle into Canaan, for all who came out of Egypt, except Caleb and Joshua, died in the wilderness.
Gr.
Iēsous, equivalent to the Heb.
Yehoshua‘,
“Joshua” (see on
Matt. 1:1). Here the reference is obviously to Joshua, who brought the Israelites and the tabernacle into Canaan.
Literally, “in the taking possession.”
That is, “nations,” or “heathen,” with particular reference to the Canaanites.
This phrase may have two applications: (1) the original Canaanite population of Palestine was not wholly conquered until David’s day; (2) the tabernacle was the focal point of Israelitish worship up to and including the reign of David. After his time the Temple took the place of the tabernacle.
Acts 7:46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.
These words, which appear unusual in the present context, are drawn from the LXX of
Ps. 132:5. Here the Greek word translated
“tabernacle” (
skēnōma) is perhaps better rendered
“habitation,” as the tabernacle (
skēnē) had existed since the days of Moses, and David wished to build a permanent temple.
Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 10) between the readings
“God of Jacob” and
“house of Jacob,” but the context favors the text as it stands in the KJV. The LXX of
Ps. 132:5, from which these words are drawn, reads
“God of Jacob.”
Acts 7:47 But Solomon built him an house.
Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
That is, but, on the other hand. This points the contrast between the immediately preceding verses, which speak of the tabernacle and Temple as God’s meeting places with men, and verses 48, 49, which emphasize that God does not dwell in man-made buildings.
Since, apart from the article, the title is but one word in Greek, the word
“most” should be capitalized. For comment on the title see on
Gen. 14:18.
The clause may be translated,
“does not dwell in handmade things” (cf. on
Heb. 9:11, 24), for there is no word for
“temple” in the original. The Jews should not have needed this reminder about the omnipresence of God, for they had been well instructed concerning this aspect of His nature (see on
1 Kings 8:27; Ps. 139:7-13). But they had concentrated on the truth that He had promised to grace the Temple with His presence until their thought confined Him to its precincts. Even worse, they came to have a greater reverence for the building than for the One for whom the building was erected. In so doing they unfitted themselves to recognize and receive God
“manifest in the flesh” (
1 Tim. 3:16) when He became incarnate and lived among them.
Paul, who had heard Stephen’s defense, used a similar argument in talking to the philosophers of Athens (
Acts 17:24, 25).
The quotation is from the gospel prophet, Isaiah (
ch. 66:1, 2), who saw God in His heavenly temple (
ch. 6:1-7).
Acts 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Stephen quotes the LXX almost verbatim. For comment on
vs. 49, 50 see on
Isa. 66:1, 2. Isaiah points out that the Most High cannot be confined within human limitations, but will dwell with those who are
“poor and of a contrite spirit.” These words were a rebuke to the Jews who heard them. With their worship centered upon the earthly Temple, they were far from being
“poor and of a contrite spirit.” Stephen’s unspoken appeal is to accept the Divine One, who had walked among them so humbly, and had shown them their heavenly Father’s lovely character. Many of the priests had already accepted the gospel (see
Acts 6:7); more would do so. These converts from the old typical system were building a spiritual temple in the hearts of men.
Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
The sudden change in the tenor of Stephen’s address doubtless is to be accounted for by the growing excitement of the Sanhedrin, and the resentment aroused by his words (cf. AA 100;
Matt. 26:65). Apparently realizing that his end was near, and that no further discussion would affect the issue, Stephen broke forth in a stern rebuke. The adjectives he used had been applied to the sins of ancient Israel:
“stiffnecked” in
Ex. 33:3, 5; 34:9, and
“uncircumcised” in
Lev. 26:41.
“Stiffnecked” is applied to stubborn oxen (see on
Ex. 32:8). The actual phrase
“uncircumcised in heart” had been used by Ezekiel (
ch. 44:7) of
“strangers.” Now at the very moment when Stephen had been telling them that their veneration of the Temple was excessive and futile, he put them in the class of the Gentiles. No worse insult could have been directed against these furious people.
Always resist the Holy Ghost.
An accurate historical summary, for from the days of Moses, whom their fathers had disobeyed, down to the days of Jesus Christ, whom they had crucified, the people of Israel had resisted the Holy Spirit. The Greek word for “resist” (antipiptō) implies active, strenuous opposition.
Acts 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Or,
“Righteous One.” This high title is also used of the Lord in
chs. 3:14; 22:14 The name had already been applied in Jewish literature to the expected Messiah (Enoch 38:2), and may have been suggested by
Isa. 11:4, 5. Pilate’s wife used the description in referring to Jesus (
Matt. 27:19). The early church seems to have accepted it, and an example of its application may be seen in
1 John 2:1, where the Greek word for
“righteous” is the same as that used here for
“Just One.” The Christ who had been condemned as a malefactor was distinguished from all men as the
“Righteous One,” the
“Just One.” By an impartation of this same righteousness, Stephen stood out in contrast with the men who were about to execute him in wicked fury.
Reading in the faces of his tormentors the fate that is soon to be his own, Stephen reminds them of their former actions with respect to Christ.
Acts 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
An emphatic form, “Ye who received.”
By the disposition of angels.
More literally,
“as ordinances of angels.” It was Christ, the Son of God, who gave the law on Mt. Sinai (see on
Ex. 20:2). He was also the Angel of the covenant (see on
Ex. 23:20). But a host of angels were with the Lord on Mt. Sinai (cf. on
Deut. 33:2; Ps. 68:17; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). The LXX of
Deut. 33:2 reads,
“on his right hand angels were with him,” and Josephus (
Antiquities xv. 5. 3) presents the same idea.
Rather, “Ye did not keep it.” This is said in dramatic contrast with the earlier phrase “received the law,” and must have dealt a telling blow to those who heard it. They had kept neither the letter of the law nor its intent. The law, given by angels, could have been their glory; its perversion was precipitating their shame and destruction.
Acts 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
Rather, “Now while they were hearing.”
See on
ch. 5:33. The word used describes a keener pang than the
“pricked” of
ch. 2:37, and it produced now, not repentance, but furious wrath.
Literally,
“gnashed their teeth at him.” The figurative expression is not infrequent (
Matt. 8:12; 13:42; etc.). Here, however, it is a literal manifestation of wrath. The Jews had allowed their rage to pass beyond control. Speechless with anger, they wanted to rend him as brute beasts would tear their prey with their teeth.
Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Pointing the simple, stark contrast to his raving opponents.
Implying not a sudden inspiration, but a continuing experience. As at the beginning (
ch. 6:5), so at the end, Stephen is
“full of the Holy Ghost.”
Stephen saw
“the heavens opened” (
Acts 7:56; cf. on
Isa. 6:1). None of the onlookers saw the glory of the heavens thus opened, and the statement that Stephen saw this glory seemed to them to aggravate his guilt. But only the prophets can tell us whether what they see is with the inward spiritual eye or through an extension of the physical sense (cf.
Matt. 3:16; 2 Cor. 12:1-6).
Compare on
Gen. 3:24; Ex. 13:21; John 1:14; Acts 7:2. Stephen’s speech begins with a reference to
“the God of glory,” and ends by reporting a vision of divine glory that shines upon his mind. With what a rapt expression he must have gazed into that glory. He forgot the deadly peril of the moment, and gave himself entirely to the heavenly vision.
Christ is usually spoken of as sitting at the right hand of God.
See on
Matt. 26:64. This sight of the Father and the Son fortified their faithful suffering servant.
Acts 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
In the NT outside the Gospels only here and in
Rev. 1:13; 14:14. Stephen may have heard it from the Lord’s own lips, or he may have learned it from the early church, since his speech was made before any of the Gospels were written. The members of the Sanhedrin probably remembered that Christ Himself had used this phrase at the time of His trial before them (
Matt. 26:64). They had then condemned the Lord’s claims as blasphemous. For comment on the title see on
Mark 2:10; cf. Vol. V, p. 917.
Acts 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
Rather, “But they cried out,” that is, in an attempt to silence Stephen, instead of listening and becoming convicted in the presence of the glory of God.
Gr.
sunechō,
“to compress,” “to hold together.” They regarded Stephen’s words as blasphemous, and did not wish to hear more. They thus proved that they deserved the description given in
v. 51. They, and not Stephen, were the blasphemers.
Rather,
“rushed upon him with one accord.” Satan had brought into the Sanhedrin the kind of unity required by the Law (
Deut. 13:9, 10) when a man was to be executed. There was no waiting for an official verdict; they were unanimous in their desire and decision. For the judicial aspects of such summary proceedings compare on
Matt. 26:59.
Acts 7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.
According to
Lev. 24:14 the one to be stoned must be taken outside the camp, which, in the time of Stephen, meant outside the walls of Jerusalem.
Literally,
“were stoning him,” as though the act of execution went on while the martyr was praying (
vs. 59, 60). Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy under the Mosaic law (
Lev. 24:14-16; see on
John 8:7). But however closely the Sanhedrin may have been following this law, under the Romans they had no right to take life, particularly if Stephen was a Roman citizen (see on
Acts 6:5). But Roman officials could be bribed into convenient silence (AA 98, 101). Pilate, who was still procurator (see Vol. V, pp. 67, 68), may have been out of the city at the time, but would be unlikely to interfere with the attack on Stephen after his humiliating experience at the trial of Jesus.
The Law required that the accuser should be the first to use the deadly stones (
Deut. 17:7; cf. on
John 8:7). The loose flowing cloaks worn as outer garments would have impeded the free action of the arms of the executors, and hence were laid aside (cf.
Acts 22:20).
Gr.
neanias,
“youth,” is used with great latitude for men between 20 and 40 years of age. The term, therefore, gives no help in determining the chronology of Paul’s life (cf. on
Philemon 9:1). For a possible dating of Stephen’s martyrdom see p. 99.
For the meaning of the name see on
1 Sam. 9:2. For comment on Saul’s previous history, his presence at the martyrdom of Stephen, and subsequent change of name to Paul see Additional Note 2 at end of chapter.
Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Rather, “as they were stoning.” Stephen prayed while he was being stoned.
As indicated by italics in the KJV, the word
“God” is not in the original. The prayer itself shows that Stephen called upon the Lord Jesus, whom he had just seen standing at the right hand of God (
v. 56).
Acts 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
In prayer to and adoration of the One whom he had seen on the right hand of God, though he was doubtless forced to his knees by the stoning.
Literally,
“do not reckon to them this sin.” Stephen could do little with respect to his persecutors’ past sins, but he had a personal right to request forgiveness for their present transgression. In pleading for them he revealed how fully he had acquired the forgiving spirit that had characterized his Master (cf.
Luke 23:34).
See on
Mark 5:39; John 11:11. Throughout his defense Stephen’s conduct is in marked contrast with that of his accusers. They are filled with vindictive fury, but he maintains a calm such as possessed Christ in the judgment hall. Now Luke, in closing his account of the martyr’s ministry, preserves that hallowed atmosphere in his final phrase,
“he fell asleep.” The battle is over, the victory is won; God’s faithful warrior leaves the tumult and quietly sleeps until the resurrection day. Succeeding chapters show that his death was not in vain.
ADDITIONAL NOTES ON CHAPTER 7
The speech of Stephen presents some difficulties as to its purpose, the matters it presents, and its questions of fact. In approaching these problems certain considerations should be borne in mind:
(1) The speech is reported, not as Luke might have understood its matter and import 30 years later, when he wrote Acts, but probably as it was reported to him by one or more of the hearers, such as Saul (Paul) or one of the converted priests (
ch. 6:7). Of course, it must be remembered that God could have given a knowledge of the sermon directly to Luke.
(2) The speech was never finished, because his hearers rushed upon him in fury, dragged him outside the city, and stoned him to death.
(3) Stephen’s speech was historical, as had been Peter’s speeches before him (
chs. 2; 3), and Paul’s afterward (
chs. 13; 22; 26), and to that extent records little of his theological thinking. Stephen’s theology, as it had developed up to this time, must be seen in the implications of the history he traced, and in the accusations of his enemies.
(4) His discourse was doubtless a continuation of the evangelistic message given by the seven following their ordination (
ch. 6:7-10), and of the presentation of the gospel Stephen had been making in the synagogues of the Hellenists (see on
v. 9). Therefore his defense took for granted much that would be of help to the present-day student in analyzing and evaluating it.
(5) Some of the historical and exegetical difficulties that his discourse appears to present—such as the matter of Abraham’s not leaving Haran until after Terah’s death (
ch. 7:4); the 75 persons as the total of the Hebrew clan with Joseph in Egypt (
v. 14); the parcel of ground said to have been purchased in Shechem by Abraham (
v. 16); the burial of Jacob in that plot of ground (
vs. 15, 16); the citation from
Amos 5:26, 27, in which Stephen substitutes
“Babylon” for
“Damascus”; and the names of the pagan deities mentioned (
Acts 7:43)—can be viewed as arising, in part or in whole, from our lack of information that may have been known to Stephen.
Three fairly obvious objectives can be inferred for Stephen’s speech:
1. To win approval, or rather to temper disapproval, by showing the Sanhedrin that he had familiarity with Hebrew history, and to provide ground for proving his orthodoxy.
2. To show historically how God had sought to lead the Hebrews, and how persistently they had rejected that leadership as given through Moses, the prophets, and the longforetold Messiah.
3. To show the nature and meaning of the worship that God had prescribed for the patriarchs and for His chosen people, in relation, as must be recognized, to Christ’s newly inaugurated work at the right hand of God. This may be considered the most important, but least clearly stated, objective. Four facts are to be observed in connection with it:
a. When the deacons, of whom Stephen emerges as the leading evangelist, began their public ministry,
“a great company of the priests,” it is noted for the first time,
“were obedient to the faith” (
ch. 6:7). This result may have arisen from a particular emphasis in the presentation of the gospel by Stephen and the other deacons.
b. The serious accusation was brought against Stephen that he taught what was contrary to
“this holy place,” that is, the Temple; to
“the law”; and to the
“customs” (
ch. 6:13, 14).
c. Stephen stressed the call of Abraham and God’s providential care of Jacob and his descendants (
ch. 7:2-17); the liberation of the Hebrews from Egypt under the leadership of Moses (
vs. 18-36); Moses’ witness to a future prophet for the church in the wilderness (
vs. 37, 38); the false worship and unconsecrated sacrifices of the Hebrews (
vs. 39-43); the wilderness tabernacle built according to the pattern shown to Moses (
vs. 44, 45); Solomon’s Temple (
vs. 46, 47); and the fact that God is in no need of man-made temples (
vs. 48-50). This emphasis upon worship would suggest that Stephen was leading to the subject of Christ’s ministry in heaven.
d. Stephen’s experience bears a recognizable relationship to the prophecy of the 70 weeks (
Dan. 9:24-27), which began in 457 B.C., in the last week of which Messiah was to be cut off,
“not for himself,” and the typical, earthly sacrificial system was to end as an effective means of intercession, which result would mean also the end of the earthly priesthood. This commentary accepts the view that the crucifixion took place in A.D. 31 (see Vol. V, pp. 251-265),
“in the midst of the week.” Therefore the last of the 70 prophetic weeks must end in A.D. 34. Thus Stephen’s ministry can be viewed as dramatically symbolizing God’s appeal to His chosen people during the last prophetic week, before the gospel is offered to the Gentiles. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to date Stephen’s martyrdom in A.D. 34, for the killing of Stephen may be viewed as a final act of rejection of the gospel by the Jews as a nation.
When Stephen’s speech is viewed against this background, it is seen to be a dramatic, vital episode in a critical period of early church history.
The young man, Saul, introduced in
ch. 7:58, plays so important a part in the NT scene as to warrant close attention from the first mention of his name. Direct biographical details are scanty, but indirect references permit a reasonably certain reconstruction of his early life. Apart from an oblique mention of his mother (
Gal. 1:15), and general references to his Hebrew ancestors (
Acts 24:14; Gal. 1:14; 2 Tim. 1:3), the Scriptures give no clue to Saul’s parentage. That he was not an only child is clear from
Acts 23:16, where
“Paul’s sister’s son” is introduced. It is possible that his family, regarding him as an apostate when he became a Christian, was alienated, and severed all connections with him (see
Phil. 3:8), and that this made mention of them painful to him, although
Rom. 16:7 may be understood to mean that some of his relatives were Christians.
A tradition of the 2d century, first recorded by Jerome, states that Saul’s parents originally lived in Gischala, of Galilee. About 4 B.C. they are supposed to have been captured and taken as slaves to Tarsus, the chief city of Cilicia, in Asia Minor, where they eventually gained their freedom, prospered, and became Roman citizens. Later, a son, Saul, was born to them there.
Saul’s life began at Tarsus (
Acts 22:3), where, on the eighth day, he was circumcised (
Phil. 3:5) and, in accordance with custom, named (see on
Luke 1:59). Since he was of the tribe of Benjamin (
Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5), he may have been named after the first king of Israel, who came from the same house.
From birth he possessed certain enviable privileges. He was born a Roman citizen (
Acts 22:28). In the 1st century A.D., Roman citizenship was still jealously guarded, and it is probable that Saul’s family was one of some distinction and of more than average wealth. The holder of such citizenship had every reason to be proud, and would naturally be favorably inclined toward imperial Rome. But, in addition, Saul had a local loyalty to his own distinguished city. He was a citizen of Tarsus (
ch. 21:39). This means that he was not merely resident there, but possessed citizen rights. This privilege he probably enjoyed because of services rendered to the city by his family.
Over and above these social privileges, however, Saul valued his racial and religious heritage. He gloried in the description,
“an Hebrew of the Hebrews” (
Phil. 3:5; cf.
2 Cor. 11:22), and was jealous of his ancestral traditions. This was quite compatible with his pride in Roman and Tarsian citizenship, for until A.D. 70, when Vespasian abolished their legal rights, the Jews were allowed to preserve their distinctive nationality, even in the pagan Roman setting. To this satisfaction with his religious background he added a special pride in his Pharisaism. He
“lived a Pharisee” “after the most straitest [Jewish] sect” of his religion (
Acts 26:5; cf.
ch. 23:6; Phil. 3:5). Some commentators suggest that this
Pharisaism was inherited from his father, but it is just as possible that he became a Pharisee because of his training under Gamaliel (cf. on
Acts 5:34).
At an early age, probably when he was 12, Saul was sent to Jerusalem (
ch. 26:4), where he was educated by the famous Gamaliel I (
ch. 22:3; see on
ch. 5:34). He was trained in
“the perfect manner of the law,” “believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets,” growing to be
“zealous toward God” and
“more exceedingly zealous of the traditions” of his fathers (
Acts 22:3; 24:14; Gal. 1:14). It seems that he became a more fanatical supporter of his sect than did his master (cf. on
Acts 5:34). He thus laid the foundation for his future energetic crusade against the Christian church (
chs. 8:1, 3; 22:4, 5; 26:9-12). With this background, and in this setting, Saul enters the narrative of the book of Acts (
ch. 7:58). As a zealous member of the strictest section of Judaism, he lends the weight and assent of his presence to the death of Stephen who seems to be a critic of Judaism. His presence suggests that he had continued to live in Jerusalem. He would therefore be well aware of Christ’s ministry and death, and the increasingly powerful apostolic witness that followed. But since he mentions only his supernatural encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road (
Acts 22:7, 8; 26:14, 15; 1 Cor. 15:8), it is unlikely that he ever met Him in the flesh. Nevertheless, Saul was well equipped as an anti-Christian persecutor, and there is nothing anomalous in his participation in the first martyr’s death.
Considerable discussion has centered on the change of name that occurs about halfway through the book of Acts.
Chapter 13:9 speaks of
“Saul (who also is called Paul),” or, to give a variant translation,
“Saul, otherwise Paul.” Why should a second name be here introduced when
“Saul” has already been used 18 times between
chs. 7:58 and 13:9? From the days of Jerome the newly introduced name has been connected with that of Sergius Paulus, the deputy (proconsul) of Cyprus. It has been suggested that Saul took the name Paul at this juncture to honor the deputy’s conversion to the Christian faith. Such an explanation seems improbable, for there are weighty reasons for concluding that Saul must have had more than one name from his earliest years.
Saul was born into a multilingual world. A heterogeneous population spoke an amazing babel of differing tongues, but each group had its own native speech.
Superimposed on this base were Greek, the lingua franca of the civilized world (see Vol. V, p. 103), and Latin, the official language of the Roman Empire. As a result, many men of the day spoke not only their native tongue but also Greek and Latin. Because of this, many of them came to have more than one name, or differing forms of the same name according to the language or society in which it was being used. In other cases they bore names that had no linguistic connections with each other—that is, were not translations from one language to another. In Saul’s case the process may have worked as follows: At circumcision he was given a Jewish name, Saul, but since he lived in a Gentile community, he also bore a not uncommon Latin name, Paulus. Many examples of double names may be quoted: Belteshazzar-Daniel, Esther-Hadassah, John Mark (cf.
Acts 1:23; 13:1; Col. 4:11).
Luke shows his awareness of the apostle’s two names, Saul and Paul.
Prior to
Acts 13:9, he has portrayed him in a predominantly Hebrew environment, and has therefore used his Hebrew name, Saul. Now, in
ch. 13:9, Luke sees him face to face with a Roman official, who would naturally ask him such questions as,
“What is your name?”
“Where is your home?” To such queries the Roman citizen would not reply,
“Saul, a Pharisee of Jerusalem,” but
“Paul, a Roman citizen of Tarsus.” Thus it appears that Luke’s revelation of his hero’s other name is particularly felicitous—it is true to circumstance, and scarcely needs any other explanation. From this point on, Luke uses the Gentile name, apart from three reminiscent references to
“Saul” (
chs. 22:7, 13; 26:14), which show how accurately Luke reported Paul’s speeches. This is entirely appropriate, for Paul’s ministry during the second half of Acts is almost entirely for nonJews. The name Paul is thus interwoven with his service to the Gentiles. This receives the strongest possible support from the apostle’s own invariable use of
“Paul” in his epistles (
Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:12; 2 Cor. 10:1; Gal. 5:2; Col. 4:18; etc.).
One other interpretation merits consideration. The Latin word
paulus (its Greek equivalent is
pauros) means
“little,” or
“small,” and has been taken as a description of Saul’s stature. The idea receives some support from the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, which dates from A.D. 160-180, and though not wholly reliable, may possibly reflect a genuine tradition concerning the personal appearance of the great apostle. The relevant passage says:
“A man small in size, bald-headed, bandy-legged, well-built, with eyebrows meeting, rather long-nosed, full of grace. For sometimes he seemed like a man, and sometimes he had the countenance of an angel” (
ANF, vol. 8, p. 487). It must be recognized, however, that such an explanation involves acceptance of a later date for the name Paul, since it could not have been given until physical characteristics were pronounced.
Whatever the origin of Saul’s alternative name, the name itself was Roman and was eminently appropriate to the apostle’s ultimate aim of taking the gospel to the imperial capital (cf. on
Acts 19:21; Rom. 1:15). Furthermore, as Luke enters upon the main topic of his book, the Gentile ministry of Paul, he consistently uses only the apostle’s Roman name. For a tentative chronology of the life of Saul, otherwise and more commonly known as Paul, see pp. 97-102.