Acts 7:60

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα : a phrase not used in classical writers, but Blass compares Ovid, Fasti, ii., 438; five times in St. Luke's writings, Luke 22:41; Acts 9:40; Acts 20:36; Acts 21:5; only once elsewhere in N.T., Mark 15:19. The attitude of kneeling in prayer would no doubt commend itself to the early believers from the example of their Lord. Standing would seem to have been the more common attitude among the Jews, but cf. instances in the O.T. of kneeling in prayer, LXX, 1 Kings 8:54; Ezra 9:5; Daniel 6:10, and also the expression used twice by St. Paul, κάμπτειν τὰ γόνατα, 1 Chronicles 29:20 1Es 8:73, Isaiah 45:23, etc., Ephesians 3:14, and Philippians 2:10 (Romans 11:4; Romans 14:11). See Friedrich, Das Lucasevangelium, p. 42. φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, cf. Luke 23:46. The last final effort of the strong love which showed itself also in the martyr's bended knees (see Wendt, in loco), Eusebius, H. E., v., 2, tells us how the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons took up St. Stephen's words in their own prayer for their persecutors (cf. the famous instance of the last words of Sir Thomas More before his judges, and Dante, Purgatorio, xv., 106 ff., on the dying Stephen): μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ταύτην : the negative expression best corresponds to the positive ἀφιέναι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (Wendt), cf. 1Ma 13:38-39; 1Ma 15:5; 1Ma 15:8, where the contrast marked between ἱστάναι and ἀφιέναι seems to favour this explanation. Blass takes it as marking a contrast like that between ἱστάναι and ἀναιρεῖν, cf. Hebrews 10:9. Weiss lays stress upon ταύτην, and regards the prayer as asking that their present sin might not be weighed out to them in an equivalent punishment, cf. Grotius on the Hebrew שָׁקַל, 1 Kings 20:39, whilst De Wette (so Felten) takes it as simply “reckon it not,” i.e., “weigh it not,” cf. Zechariah 11:12. Schöttgen sees a reference to the Rabbinical notion “si quis bonum aut malum opus facit, hoc sequitur eum, et stat juxta eum in mundo futuro,” Revelation 14:13, and cf. a similar view quoted by Farrar, St. Paul, i., 167. Rendall regards it as a judicial term, as if Stephen appealed to Christ as Judge not to impute their sin to the murderers in condemnation (Romans 10:3). The words of St. Stephen again recall the words of his Master, Luke 23:34, words which (Eusebius, H. E., cf. ii., 20) also formed the dying prayer of James, “the Lord's brother”. In James as in Stephen we may see how the true Christian character, whilst expressing itself in righteous indignation against hypocrisy and wrong, never failed to exhibit as its counterpart the meekness and gentleness of Christ. ἐκοιμήθη (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:18), a picture-word of rest and calmness which stands in dramatic contrast to the rage and violence of the scene. The word is used of death both in LXX and in classical Greek, cf., e.g., Isaiah 14:8; Isaiah 14:18; Isaiah 43:17; 1 Kings 11:43 2Ma 12:45, etc.; Homer, Il., xi., 241; Soph., Elect., 509. Blass well says of this word, “sed nullo loco æque mirandum,” and describes the reference in Homer, κοιμήσατο χάλκεον ὕπνον, as “et simile et dissimile”: Christians sleep in death, but no “brazen sleep”; they sleep ἐν Χριστῷ; simple words which formed the epitaph on many a Christian grave in Him, Who is Himself “the Resurrection and the Life”. Page notes the cadence of the word expressing rest and repose, cf. Farrar, St. Paul, i., 167, note, and ἀκωλύτως, Acts 28:31.

St. Stephen's Speech. Many and varied explanations have been given of the drift and purpose of St. Stephen's address. But the various explanations need not be mutually exclusive, and St. Stephen, like a wise scribe instructed unto the kingdom, might well bring out of his treasury things new and old. It is often said, e.g., that the address is no reply to the charges alleged, that it would be more intelligible how the charges were framed from a perversion of the speech, than how the speech could be framed out of the charges; whilst, on the other hand, it is possible to see from the opening to the closing words an implicit repudiation of the charges of blasphemy against God and contempt of the law. The speech opens with a declaration of the divine majesty of Jehovah; it closes with a reference to the divine sanction of the law, and with the condemnation of those who had not kept it. This implicit repudiation by Stephen of the charges brought against him is also contained in St. Chrysostom's view of the purpose of the martyr, viz., that he designed to show that the covenant and promises were before the law, and sacrifice and the law before the temple. This view, which was adopted by Grotius and Calvin, is in some degree retained by Wendt (so also Felten), who sums up the chief aim of the speech as a demonstration that the presence of God is not confined to the holy place, the temple, but that long before the temple was built, and before the people had settled in the promised land, God had given to the fathers a share in the proofs of this revelation, and that too in strange countries (although there is no reason to suppose that Stephen went so far as to contend that Jew and Gentile were on a precisely equal footing). But Wendt is conscious that this view does not account for the whole of the speech, and that it does not explain the prominence given in it to the obstinacy of Israel against the revelation of God vouchsafed to Moses, with which the counter accusation against Stephen is so closely connected (see Spitta's severe criticism, Apostelgeschichte, pp. 111, 112, and Weizsäcker's evident failure to maintain the position that the climax of the whole address is to be found in the declaration about Solomon's temple, which he is obliged to explain as a later thought belonging to a later time, Apostolic Age, i., pp. 68 71, E.T.). Thus in his last edition, p. 151 (1899), he points out that in section Acts 7:35-43, as also in Acts 7:25; Acts 7:27, the obstinacy of the people against Moses, sent to be their deliverer, is evidently compared with their obstinacy in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, and in Acts 7:51-53 the murder of Jesus is condemned as a fresh proof of the opposition of the people to God's revelation to them: here is a point of view which in Wendt's judgment evidently had a share in the composition of the address. Wendt urges his view against the older one of Meyer and to some extent at all events that of Baur, Zeller and Overbeck, that the central point of the speech is to be found in Acts 7:51, to which the whole preceding sketch of the history of the people led up: however great had been the benefits bestowed by God upon His people, on their part there had been from the beginning nothing in return but a corresponding thanklessness and resistance to this purpose. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, pp. 87, 88, also recognises that the theme of the address is to be found in Acts 7:51-53, but he also admits the double purpose of St. Stephen, viz., not only to show (as Meyer and others) that at all stages of their history Israel had been stiffnecked and disobedient, but also (as Wendt) to draw a parallel between their conduct and the treatment of Jesus by those whom he is addressing.

This leads us to a consideration of the view of Spitta as to the main purpose of St. Stephen's speech. Whatever may be thought of its merits, it gives a unity to the speech which is wanting in many earlier and more recent expositions of it, as Hilgenfeld recognises, although he himself holds a different view, and one essentially similar to that of Baur. According to Spitta, in Acts 7:2-16 we have an introduction to the chief section of the address which begins with Acts 7:17, καθὼς δὲ ἤγγιζεν ὁ χρόνος τῆς ἐπαγ. Moses, Acts 7:20, was the person through whom God would save His people, and lead them to His true service in the promised land, Acts 7:7; Acts 7:35; Acts 7:38; Acts 7:44. If we ask why Moses occupies this important place in the speech, the answer is found in Acts 7:37, which forms the central point of the description of Moses, and divides it into two parts (a verse in which Clemen and Hilgenfeld can only see an interpolation of a redactor, and in which Weiss finds something suspicious, see Zöckler's note, in loco). In the first part, 17 36, we are told how Moses by divine and miraculous guidance grows up to be the deliverer of Israel. But when he would commence his work of deliverance his brethren will not understand his aim and reject him, 23 28. In the wilderness he receives a fresh commission from God to undertake the delivery of the people, 29 34. But this Moses (οὗτος) who was thus repulsed God had sent to be a ruler and deliverer this man was he who led these people forth and it was this Moses who said to the children: “A prophet” etc., Acts 7:37. Why is this prophecy introduced except to support the inference that as Moses, a type of the Messiah, was thus repulsed, and afterwards raised to be a ruler and deliverer, so must, according to Moses' own words, the Messiah of Israel be first rejected by His people? In the next division, Acts 7:38-50, the same parallel is again instituted between Moses and the Messiah. The former had delivered a law which consisted of “living oracles,” but instead of receiving it, Israel had given themselves up to the worship of idols, 35 43; instead of establishing a worship well-pleasing to God, those who came after Moses, not content with the tabernacle, which was not confined to one place, and which represented the heavenly archetype, had built a temple which called forth the cutting words of the prophet, 47 50. In his explanation of these last verses there lies at least one weakness of Spitta's explanation, for he does not seem in his disapproval of the temple to allow that it had even a relative value, and that Solomon was well aware that God did not dwell only in temples made with hands. But Spitta's main point is to trace again a connection with the verse which forms his centre, Acts 7:37 (Deuteronomy 18:15). As Moses in vain communicated a spiritual law and a corresponding worship to a people whose heart turned after idols and the service of a temple, so the Messiah must also experience that the carnal mind of the people would oppose His revelation of the divine will in relation to a rightful service. Thus the whole speech becomes a proof of the Messiahship of Jesus as against those who appealed to the authority of Moses, and saw in Jesus a twofold cause of offence: (1) that He was rejected by His people and crucified; (2) that He had treated with impiety that which they held most sacred the law and the temple.

In all this Spitta sees no direct answer to the false witnesses; but the speech, he maintains, is much rather an answer to the two causes of offence which must have been discussed in every synagogue, and which the infant Church must have been obliged to face from the first, especially as it took its stand upon the proof that Jesus was the Christ. Stephen in his disputations, Acts 6:9, must have often faced opponents who thus sought to invalidate the Messianic claims of Jesus; what more natural than that he should now repeat before the whole assembly the proofs which he had before given in the synagogue, where no one could resist the spirit and the wisdom with which he spake? In this way Spitta maintains that the charges in Acts 7:52-53 occupy their proper place; the Jews had rejected the prophets Moses and his successors finally they rejected the Messiah, whom the prophets had foretold (Apostelgeschichte, p. 105 ff.). Whatever strictures we may be inclined to pass upon Spitta (see, e.g., Wendt in new edition, 1899, pp. 150, 151), it is not unlikely that he has at all events grasped what others have failed to see, viz., that in the nature of the case, Stephen in his ἀπολογία, or counter-accusation whichever it was could not have been unmindful of the Prophet like unto Moses, whom Moses had foretold: his dying prayer revealed the Name, not uttered in the speech, which was enshrined in his inmost heart; Jesus was the Christ He came οὐ καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι, whether that fulfilment was made by a spiritual temple or a spiritual law. In thus keeping the thought of Jesus of Nazareth prominent throughout the speech, whilst not actually uttering His Name, in thus comparing Moses and Christ, Stephen was answering the charges made against him. “This Nazarene” (so it was said in the charge made against Stephen) “would destroy this place and change the customs,” etc. the prophet Moses had given the people living oracles, not a law which should stifle the spirit in the letter; the prophet Isaiah had spoken of a presence of God far transcending that which filled any earthly temple; and if these prophets had pointed on to the Messiah, and if the Nazarene were indeed the Christ thus foretold, what wonder that He should reveal a commandment unto life, and a worship of the Father in spirit and in truth? Nor must it be forgotten that if Stephen was interrupted before his speech was concluded, he may well have intended to drive home more closely the manifest fulfilment in Christ of the deliverance dimly foreshadowed in the work of Moses and in the freedom from Egyptian bondage. This was the true parallel between Moses and the Messiah on which the Rabbis were wont to dwell. Thus the Messiah, in comparison with Moses, was the second, but in comparison with all others the great, deliverer; as Moses led Israel out of Egypt, so would the Messiah accomplish the final deliverance, and restore Israel to their own land (Weber, Jüdische Theologie, pp. 359, 364 (1897)). It is to be observed that Spitta warmly supports the historical character of the speech, which he ascribes without interpolations to his source A, although in Acts 7:55-60 he refers some “insertions” to B. His criticism as against the tendency critics, especially Overbeck, is well worth consulting (pp. 110 123), and he quotes with approval the judgment of Gfrörer “I consider this speech unreservedly as the oldest monument of Gospel history”. So too Clemen, pp. 97, 288, allows that the speech is essentially derived, with the exception of Acts 7:37, as also the whole chapter with the exception of Acts 7:60, from an old written source, H.H., Historia Hellenistarum; and amongst more recent writers, McGiffert holds that whilst many maintain that the author of the Acts composed the speech and put it into the mouth of Stephen, its contents are against such a supposition, and that Luke undoubtedly got the substance of the discourse from an early source, and reproduced it with approximate accuracy (p. 89 and note). So Weiss refers the speech to his Jewish-Christian source, and refuses to admit that with its profound knowledge of the O.T. it could have been composed by the author of the book. The attempt of Feine (so also Holtzmann and Jüngst) to split up the speech into two distinct parts is based upon the idea that in one part an answer is made to the charge that Stephen had spoken against God, and that the other part contains an answer to the charge that he had spoken against the temple. The first part is contained in Acts 7:2-21; Acts 7:29-34; Acts 7:44-50, and the second part in Acts 7:22-28; Acts 7:35-43; Acts 7:51-53. The latter sections are taken from Feine's Jerusalem source; they are then added to those which belong to a new source, and finally combined by the canonical Luke. Hilgenfeld may well ask how it is possible to break up in this manner the narrative part of the speech relating to Moses, so as to regard Acts 7:22-28 as a section atien from what precedes and what follows! (see especially Hilgenfeld's criticism on Feine, Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Theol., p. 396 (1895) and Knabenbauer, p. 120); on the truthful record of the speech see Lightfoot's striking remarks “Acts,” B.D. 2, i., p. 33. Whatever may be said as to the various difficulties which the speech contains, two things are apparent: (1) that these difficulties do not touch the main drift of the argument; (2) that the fact of their presence, where their removal was easy, bears witness to the accuracy of the report.