Acts Chapter 7 verse 2 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 2. - 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 vers. 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 (Galatians 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 (Genesis 12:7; Genesis 18:1; Genesis 26:2; Genesis 28:12, 13; Genesis 35:9; Exodus 24:16, 17; Numbers 16:19; Isaiah 6; John 12:41). St. Paul uses a similar phrase, "The Lord of glory '(1 Corinthians 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 Genesis 11:31, was "Ur of the Chaldees;" whence the Israelites were taught to say (Deuteronomy 26:5), "An Aramcan ready to perish was my father." That this appearance was in Ur, before he dwelt in Haran, is manifest from Genesis 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 Genesis 15:7; Nehemiah 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. Genesis 12. I precedes in point of time Genesis 11:31; similar examples are Genesis 37:5, 6; Judges 20, passim; 1 Samuel 16:21 compared with 1 Samuel 17:28; 1 Samuel 22:20, 21, compared with 1 Samuel 23:6; 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 Genesis 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 ver. 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 (70 + 75 + 60 = 205). 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, he 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 (Genesis 24:15, 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 Genesis 9:24 that Ham was the youngest, and from Genesis 10:2, 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 Joshua 24:4 God says, "I gave unto Isaac Jacob and Esau," though Esau was the elder; and so Hebrews 11:20. So again in Exodus 5:20 we read, "Moses and Aaron" (see also Exodus 40:31; Numbers 16:43; Joshua 24:5; 1 Samuel 12:6; etc.), though it appears from 1 Chronicles 6:3 that Aaron was the eldest. So again we read in Genesis 48:5, "Thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh," and in ver. 20, "God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh," though in ver. 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 (הָרָן), Lot's father, and the name of the place (הָרָן). It is called "the city of Nahor" (Genesis 24:10 compared with Genesis 47:43). It still exists as an Arab village, with the name of Harran (see 'Dictionary of Bible').

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(2) Men, brethren, and fathers.--The discourse which follows presents many aspects, each of special interest. (1) It is clearly an unfinished fragment, interrupted by the clamours of the by-standers (Acts 7:51)--the torso, as it were, of a great apologia. Its very incompleteness, the difficulty of tracing the argument as far as it goes, because we do not see how far it was meant to go, are indirect proofs that we have a true, though not necessarily a verbatim, report. A later writer, composing a speech after the manner of Herodotus and Thucydides, would have made it a much more direct answer to the charges in the indictment. And this, in its turn, supplies a reasonable presumption in favour of other speeches reported by the same author. (2) Looking to the relations between St. Luke and St. Paul, and to the prominence of the latter among the accusers of Stephen, there is a strong probability that the report was derived from him. This is confirmed by some instances of remarkable parallelism between the speech and his later teaching. (Comp. Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19; Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24). (3) The speech is the first great survey of the history of Israel as a process of divine education--the first development from the lips of a human teacher of principles that had before been latent. As such, it contains the germs which were, in their turn, to be afterwards developed, on the one hand, by St. Paul in the Epistles known to be his, on the other hand by Apollos, or whoever was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. (4) The speech is also remarkable as bringing together within a comparatively small compass a considerable number of real or seeming inaccuracies in the details of the history which is commented on. Whether they are real or apparent will be discussed as we deal with each of them. It is obvious that the results thus arrived at will form something like a crucial test of theories which men have formed as to the nature and limits of inspiration. (5) As Stephen was a Hellenistic or Greek-speaking Jew, it is probable that the speech was delivered in Greek, and so far it confirms the inference which has been drawn from the Aramaic words specially recorded in our Lord's teaching--"Ephphatha," "Talitha cumi," and the cry upon the cross--that He habitually used the former language, and that this was the medium of intercourse between the priests and Pilate. (See Notes on Mark 5:41; Mark 7:34.) . . .