SEV Biblia, Chapter 7:1
¶ El príncipe de los sacerdotes dijo entonces: ¿Es esto así?
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Acts 7:1
Verse 1. Are these things so?] Hast thou predicted the destruction of the temple? And hast thou said that Jesus of Nazareth shall change our customs, abolish our religious rites and temple service? Hast thou spoken these blasphemous things against Moses, and against God? Here was some colour of justice; for Stephen was permitted to defend himself. And, in order to do this he thought it best to enter into a detail of their history from the commencement of their nation; and thus show how kindly God had dealt with them, and how ungraciously they and their fathers had requited Him. And all this naturally led him to the conclusion, that God could no longer bear with a people the cup of whose iniquity had been long overflowing; and therefore they might expect to find wrath, without mixture of mercy. But how could St. Luke get all this circumstantial account? 1. He might have been present, and heard the whole; or, more probably, he had the account from St. Paul, whose companion he was, and who was certainly present when St. Stephen was judged and stoned, for he was consenting to his death, and kept the clothes of them who stoned him. See ver. 58; viii. 1; xxii. 20.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 1. Then said the high priest , etc.] The Ethiopic version adds, to him; that is, to Stephen; for to him he addressed himself: or he asked him, as the Syriac version renders it; he put the following question to him: are these things so? is it true what they say, that thou hast spoken blasphemous words against the temple, and the law, and hast said that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy the one, and change the other? what hast thou to say for thyself, and in thine own defence? this high priest was either Annas, or rather Caiaphas; (See Gill on Acts 4:6).
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 1-16 - Stephen was charged as a blasphemer of God, and an apostate from the church; therefore he shows that he is a son of Abraham, and value himself on it. The slow steps by which the promise made to Abraha advanced toward performance, plainly show that it had a spiritual meaning, and that the land intended was the heavenly. God owned Josep in his troubles, and was with him by the power of his Spirit, both of his own mind by giving him comfort, and on those he was concerned with by giving him favour in their eyes. Stephen reminds the Jews of their mean beginning as a check to priding themselves in the glories of tha nation. Likewise of the wickedness of the patriarchs of their tribes in envying their brother Joseph; and the same spirit was still workin in them toward Christ and his ministers. The faith of the patriarchs in desiring to be buried in the land of Canaan, plainly showed they ha regard to the heavenly country. It is well to recur to the first ris of usages, or sentiments, which have been perverted. Would we know the nature and effects of justifying faith, we should study the characte of the father of the faithful. His calling shows the power and freenes of Divine grace, and the nature of conversion. Here also we see tha outward forms and distinctions are as nothing, compared with separatio from the world, and devotedness to God.
Greek Textus Receptus
ειπεν 2036 5627 V-2AAI-3S δε 1161 CONJ ο 3588 T-NSM αρχιερευς 749 N-NSM ει 1487 COND αρα 687 PRT-I ταυτα 5023 D-NPN ουτως 3779 ADV εχει 2192 5719 V-PAI-3S
Vincent's NT Word Studies
1. Then said the high-priest. "The glorified countenance of Stephen has caused a pause of surprise and admiration, which the high-priest interrupts by calling upon the accused for his defense" (Gloag).
Robertson's NT Word Studies
7:1 {Are these things so?} (ei tauta houtws ecei). On this use of ei in a direct question see on 1:6. Literally "Do these things hold thus?" A formal question by the high priest like our "Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?" (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen's face. Two charges had been made against Stephen (1) speaking against the holy temple, (2) changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. So he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God's dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (#Ac 13:16ff.) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen's predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge "by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple" (Page). qen he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse #51) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter's mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. "So Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus" (Furneaux).
