Acts, Part 13

All the attention turns to Stephen to see how he will respond to the charges brought against him. Being accused of saying blasphemous words against God and Moses

Acts 7:1–8 ESV

1 And the high priest said, “Are these things so?” 2 And Stephen said: “Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.’ 4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living. 5 Yet he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot’s length, but promised to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him, though he had no child. 6 And God spoke to this effect—that his offspring would be sojourners in a land belonging to others, who would enslave them and afflict them four hundred years. 7 ‘But I will judge the nation that they serve,’ said God, ‘and after that they shall come out and worship me in this place.’ 8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.

7:2–5 Stephen began his speech with great deference to his hearers, reminding them that they were his fellow Jewish “brothers” and showing respect to the elders on the Sanhedrin by referring to them as “fathers.” He quickly moved into his survey of patriarchal history by quoting Gen 12:1, God’s call to Abraham to leave land and relatives and travel to a land to which he would direct him. Although Gen 12:1 is set in the context of Abraham’s residency in Haran, Stephen placed the call in an earlier context when Abraham lived in Ur before ever leaving for Haran, a conclusion one could draw from Gen 15:7. By thus stressing that the call came to Abraham at the very beginning, Stephen implicitly made the point that God was in control of Abraham’s entire movement.

The reference to God as “the God of glory” may also be a subtle touch. God revealed himself to Abraham in his full glory, even in a pagan land. From Haran, God called Abraham into “this land where you are now living” (v. 4). Yet Abraham was given no inheritance in Canaan, not so much as “a foot of ground” (v. 5). This latter statement was Stephen’s emphatic way of stating that father Abraham had no possession in the “promised land” at all, and yet God was with him. In fact, it was to this landless Abraham that God gave the promises to Israel. The promise of the land was truly a promise, since at the time it was given, Abraham had neither the land nor an heir to possess it (v. 5).

7:6–7 Verses 6–7 provide the pattern for the fulfillment of the promise, combining Gen 15:13–14 with Exod 3:12. Abraham’s descendants would be sojourners in a foreign land, would be enslaved and mistreated for 400 years, would be delivered through God’s judgment of their foreign lords, and then finally would come and worship God “in this place.” These verses provide the promise-fulfillment pattern for the entire historical sketch Stephen drew in his speech. God ever renews his promise despite the constant failures of his people, who reject his chosen leaders like Joseph and Moses. It reaches the temple itself, which should have led to the fulfillment of the promised goal “to worship God in this place.”

There is no mistaking what Stephen meant by “this place.” The temple had been the sole meaning of the word throughout his trial (cf. 6:13–14). According to v. 7b, the real goal of God’s promise to Abraham was not the land at all. It was instead the freedom to render true worship and devotion to God. Stephen would go on to show that even the temple had not realized this purpose. The promise remains yet unfulfilled. It is only fulfilled in Christ.

7:8 Verse 8 is a transition verse, showing the beginnings of the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham and leading into the history of the patriarchs. The covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:10–14) implies the birth of children, and the circumcision of Isaac confirms that God kept his promise to give descendants to Abraham (Gen 21:4). Stephen moved quickly through the patriarchal history using the motif of circumcision, from Isaac to Jacob to the twelve patriarchs. The stage was now set for the next step in Stephen’s promise-fulfillment pattern, the story of Joseph.

Acts 7:9–16 ESV

9 “And the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him 10 and rescued him out of all his afflictions and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him ruler over Egypt and over all his household. 11 Now there came a famine throughout all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction, and our fathers could find no food. 12 But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent out our fathers on their first visit. 13 And on the second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers, and Joseph’s family became known to Pharaoh. 14 And Joseph sent and summoned Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five persons in all. 15 And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, he and our fathers, 16 and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.

-7:9–10 Drawing at various points from the Joseph tradition of Gen 37–46 without quoting any passage directly, Stephen told the story of Joseph’s being sold into Egypt by his brothers, his rise to power in Egypt, the two visits of his brothers in the time of famine, and finally the descent of Jacob’s whole clan into Egypt (vv. 9–15a). Again the selectivity of his material is significant. A sharp contrast existed between Joseph and his brothers. God was with Joseph (v. 9). The Genesis narrative has much to say about Joseph’s suffering, but Stephen chose not to dwell on this. Instead he stressed God’s presence with Joseph. God fulfilled his promises through Joseph, delivering Israel from famine by his hand. God granted him “favor and wisdom” (RSV).

Note how the same characteristics are used of Stephen himself (6:3, 8, 10). Wisdom is a particular sign of God’s favor to his faithful disciples and would characterize Moses as well later in Stephen’s speech (7:22). God gave Joseph favor with people which allowed him to rise in the eyes of Pharaoh, who established him as ruler over Egypt and the royal household (v. 10). The main part of Stephen’s summary, however, does not dwell on Joseph at all but assumes his hearers’ knowledge of the story. Attention is focused on Joseph’s brothers. Though Joseph was characterized by wisdom and favor, his brothers were marked by jealousy, which led them to sell their brother into Egypt (v. 9). Significantly, Stephen did not identify them as Joseph’s “brothers” but rather as “the patriarchs,” the fathers of Israel. God was decidedly not with the jealous brothers. They experienced famine and great distress and were unable to find sustenance (v. 11).

7:12–13 A certain judgmental note is in the language itself. The judgment was not final, however, for God delivered them through the hand of Joseph (vv. 12–13). This is not explicit in Stephen’s account, but the Jews on the Sanhedrin knew the story well and could fill in the gaps. What Stephen did emphasize, however, was the seemingly insignificant detail that the brothers made two visits and only recognized Joseph on the second. Why this emphasis? The same would be true of Moses later on in Stephen’s speech. His fellow Israelites did not recognize him either on his first visit but rejected him (vv. 27–28). Only on his second visit did they recognize him as the one God had sent to deliver them from Egypt (vv. 35–36).

One is strongly tempted to see here a reference to the two “visits” of Christ. The Jews had rejected him on his first coming. Would they now accept him when confronted by Christ through Stephen’s preaching? In his temple sermon (3:17–23) Peter had made a similar appeal on the basis of Christ’s two comings, and Stephen could have been implicitly drawing the same parallel with his references to the two visits to the Israelites by their former deliverers, Joseph and Moses. Significantly, Israel’s deliverance at this time did not occur in the “promised land.” Indeed, only distress and famine were there. God delivered them in Egypt, where there was food and where their brother was, their divinely appointed deliverer. Indeed, all God’s special acts of deliverance in Stephen’s historical sketch take place outside the borders of Israel.

7:14–16 The Joseph section of Stephen’s speech ends with a reference to the descent of Jacob’s clan into Egypt and the burial of the patriarchs in Shechem (vv. 14–16). The reference to the burial at Shechem is at some variance with the Old Testament accounts, which give Hebron (Mamre) as the burial place for Jacob (Gen 49:29–32; cf. Gen 23:19) and Shechem as the burial place for Joseph (Josh 24:32). Stephen’s reference to the burial site at Shechem, however, is clear enough. This too was outside the “holy” land, in hated Samaritan territory. In any event the stage was set for the Moses history. God had delivered Israel from famine and had brought them in peace to Egypt through the hand of Joseph. God had remained true to his promises. Things would change with the coming of a new king to Egypt; and the cycle of oppression, rejection, and deliverance would begin all over again.

Acts 7:17–34 ESV

17 “But as the time of the promise drew near, which God had granted to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt 18 until there arose over Egypt another king who did not know Joseph. 19 He dealt shrewdly with our race and forced our fathers to expose their infants, so that they would not be kept alive. 20 At this time Moses was born; and he was beautiful in God’s sight. And he was brought up for three months in his father’s house, 21 and when he was exposed, Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son. 22 And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds. 23 “When he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brothers, the children of Israel. 24 And seeing one of them being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian. 25 He supposed that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand, but they did not understand. 26 And on the following day he appeared to them as they were quarreling and tried to reconcile them, saying, ‘Men, you are brothers. Why do you wrong each other?’ 27 But the man who was wronging his neighbor thrust him aside, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? 28 Do you want to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?’ 29 At this retort Moses fled and became an exile in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons. 30 “Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. 31 When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the sight, and as he drew near to look, there came the voice of the Lord: 32 ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.’ And Moses trembled and did not dare to look. 33 Then the Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. 34 I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.’

-The major portion of Stephen’s historical sketch is devoted to the story of Moses, which is divided into three sections. Each covers forty years of Moses’ life, based on the tradition that he lived to age 120 (Deut 34:7). The first forty years cover his upbringing in Pharaoh’s house (vv. 17–22). The second forty years begin with his rejection by the contending Israelites and cover the period of his sojourn in Midian (vv. 23–29). The final forty years begin with God’s call of Moses at the burning bush and cover the period of the Exodus and wilderness wandering. This final section continues until v. 45 with the reference to Joshua’s entry into the promised land. The outline followed here, however, will limit the final section of the Moses history to vv. 30–34, considering v. 35 as the point at which Stephen departed from his more or less dispassionate recital of history and launched into a more pointed argumentative style.

7:17–22 If Israel’s fathers enjoyed relative prosperity in the early days of their Egyptian sojourn, all that changed radically with the coming of a new king in Egypt, who was greatly alarmed at the ever-increasing numbers of Israelites (vv. 17–18). The new king did not “know” Joseph (cf. Exod 1:10–11). The new king “dealt treacherously” with the Israelites, enslaving them in forced labor and compelling them to “expose”5their children. Stephen greatly reduced the story of Moses’ rescue, certain that the Sanhedrin members were familiar with it already, and focused on the essentials. Hidden for three months in his father’s household and finally exposed when he could no longer be kept secret, Moses was adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter and reared as her own son (vv. 20–21). Moses is described as being “beautiful to God” (author’s translation; the NIV translates “no ordinary child”), a description that prepares us early for his role as God’s chosen deliverer of his people. Moses was thoroughly trained in all the wisdom of Egypt (7:22).

This point is not made in Old Testament accounts of Moses but is a common motif in later Jewish works on his life. Philo, for example, related how the best teachers from Egypt and Greece were summoned to train the young Moses, who soon outstripped their own knowledge (De Vita Mosis 1:20–24). Other writers attributed to him the invention of the alphabet and even the whole of Egyptian civilization. Such accounts are obvious exaggerations, but Stephen’s pointing to Moses’ upbringing in Egyptian wisdom was perhaps his reminder to the Sanhedrin that God could work through others than the Jews. He could use the wisdom of Egypt to prepare Moses as deliverer of his people. The reference to Moses’ power in speech may come as something of a surprise, given his own protest that he was lacking in eloquence (Exod 4:10). Some have suggested that the reference may be to his skill in the written word. In any event the stage had been set. Israel was oppressed, but God was true to his promises. He raised up a deliverer and had him trained for his future role. God was with Moses.

7:23–29 These verses treat the central forty-year period of Moses’ career. Both of Stephen’s central themes are emphasized—Israel’s rejection of its divinely appointed leader and the “pilgrim” motif. The theme of rejection is given the major treatment and is developed in vv. 23–28, which relate the story of how two quarreling Israelites refused Moses’ intercession in their dispute. Stephen’s version follows fairly closely the account given in Exod 2:11–15 and quotes Exod 2:14 directly in vv. 27b–28.

The key to Stephen’s understanding of the passage is found in the interpretive details he added in expounding it. By so doing he highlighted Moses’ role as God’s appointed deliverer of Israel. This begins in v. 23, where Moses decided to “visit” his fellow Israelites. The verb translated “visit” is used throughout Luke-Acts for God or his emissaries overseeing and caring for his people. As God’s emissary, Moses went forth to look after his fellow Israelites. Seeing an Israelite being mistreated by an Egyptian, he “went to his defense” and killed the Egyptian. The Old Testament account makes no reference to Moses “avenging” the Israelite. This was Stephen’s interpretive comment. As God’s emissary, Moses wreaked divine vengeance on the offending Egyptian. Verse 25 is totally unparalleled in Exod 2:11–15 and is Stephen’s reflection on the account. Moses assumed that the Israelites would recognize that God was “using him to rescue them.” The theme of Moses as God’s deliverer for Israel continues in v. 26, where Moses is depicted as mediator between the two Israelites who were fighting with each other. He attempted to “reconcile” them. Again there is no mention of Moses being a reconciler in the Exodus account. This was Stephen’s way of emphasizing Moses’ role as God’s representative. He was the divinely appointed mediator between Israel and God. Finally, Stephen saw in Exod 2:14 the explicit point he wanted to make and quoted it directly (vv. 27b–28), “Who made you ruler and judge over us?” (italics mine). By now Stephen had made the answer to this question infinitely clear—God did. Moses was God’s divinely appointed leader.

Just as clearly as Stephen established the role of Moses as God’s emissary, he depicted also the flat rejection of his leadership by the Israelites. This began with Stephen’s interpretive comment in v. 25. The Israelites did not recognize Moses as their God-appointed deliverer and leader. The quote from Exod 2:14 underscores this (vv. 27b–28). The Israelite who was mistreating his brother refused Moses’ intercession and firmly denied that Moses had any right to serve as leader and judge over him. Stephen closed the account of the incident by continuing the direct quote from Exod 2:14, which shows the Israelite’s awareness that Moses had killed the Egyptian. Hearing this, said Stephen, he immediately fled to Midian (v. 29).

A glance at Exod 2:15 will show that Moses’ flight is attributed to Pharaoh’s wrath upon hearing about the killing of the Egyptian. Exodus 2:14, however, clarifies that the Israelite’s awareness of Moses’ deed first alerted Moses that the word was out and his life was in danger. By concentrating on this and passing over the reference to Pharaoh, Stephen made even stronger the connection between Moses’ flight and the Israelite rejection of him. They rejected their divinely chosen leader, put his life in danger, and forced him to flee.

Verse 29 closes the account of Moses’ middle years, the sojourn in Midian. Chronologically the years in Midian cover most of the forty-year period. Stephen was obviously not concerned with giving a complete historical picture but only in highlighting those events that advance his themes. The theme emphasized in v. 29 is that of sojourner, the pilgrim motif. He was a sojourner, a foreigner in Midian. The second son, Eliezer, is not mentioned until Exod 18:4. Moses had been rejected by his own people and forced to live in a strange land. But God was with him, and there in a foreign land God would reveal himself to Moses. By emphasizing Moses’ pilgrim status, Stephen clarified that God cannot be tied down to a single place or people.

7:30–33 The final forty-year period of Moses’ life began with God’s appearance to him in the burning bush. It continued through the Exodus (vv. 36) and the wilderness period (vv. 36–38). Again Stephen scarcely gave a full picture of this final period of Moses’ life but emphasized those events that advanced his themes. God’s revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai illustrates two of those themes—his revelation taking place outside the holy land and his choice of Moses as Israel’s leader. Stephen’s account of this is a rather straightforward presentation of the account in Exod 3:1–10, which quotes numerous portions of the Septuagint text directly and summarizes others. God appeared to Moses in the desert region of Mt. Sinai through an angel in the flames of a burning bush (v. 30). Amazed at the sight, Moses approached the bush to examine the prodigy more closely and in doing so heard the voice of the Lord (v. 31). God revealed himself to Moses as the God of the patriarchs (v. 32a), and Moses, fearful, diverted his attention from the theophany (v. 32b). God commanded Moses to remove his sandals because he was standing on holy ground (v. 33). Stephen’s inclusion of this detail may have been a subtle reminder to his hearers that there was holy ground elsewhere, far from the temple in Jerusalem.

7:34 Verse 34 concludes the account, giving God’s promise to deliver his people from their Egyptian bondage through the hand of Moses. Following Stephen’s treatment up to this point, the significance of this incident is clear. God remained true to his promises. He had looked upon their oppression and would deliver them. Moses was the one whom God had chosen as leader for Israel’s deliverance. But the Israelites had already rejected him; they would continue to reject him.

Polhill, John B. 1992. Acts. Vol. 26. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.