Read & Study the Bible Online - Bible Portal
Peter Pett

Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible - Acts 7:44-53

Reply to the Charge of Speaking Against the Law and the Temple (7:44-53). Having been accused of speaking against the Law Stephen defends himself by speaking in favour of the oracles of God and pointing out how they and their fathers had not been obedient to them. This may be analysed as follows: · Israel received the God-designed Tabernacle which came from God but did not keep it (Acts 7:44-46). · Israel rejected the God-appointed Tabernacle and chose the man devised Temple (Acts 7:48-50). ·... read more

Peter Pett

Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible - Acts 7:51

“You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you do always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.” Their attitude towards the Temple, exalting what God had not exalted, and turning from what God had provided, epitomised their whole attitude towards all that was of God. They altered what God had given. They altered His house, they changed His word, they resisted the Holy Spirit in every way, just as their fathers had before them (compare Isaiah 63:10). They were... read more

Matthew Poole

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible - Acts 7:51

Stiff necked; a metaphor taken from heifers that are unaccustomed to the yoke. Uncircumcised in heart; such as had still depraved affections, which they ought to have put away rather than the foreskin of their flesh; for they were commanded to circumcise their hearts, Deuteronomy 10:16, which also God promised to do for his people, Deuteronomy 30:6. And St. Paul was not the first who spake of a twofold circumcision, Romans 2:28,Romans 2:29 but God looked always to the inward and spiritual part... read more

Joseph Exell

Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary - Acts 7:1-53

CRITICAL REMARKSActs 7:1. The high priest’s question, Are these things so? analogous to that put to Christ (Matthew 26:62), was equivalent to a modern “Guilty or not guilty?”Acts 7:2. Concerning what Stephen said in reply, Luke’s information may have been derived either from Paul, who probably was present on the occasion (Acts 26:10), and afterwards in his own speeches and writings reproduced the martyr’s language (compare Acts 7:48 with Acts 16:24, and Acts 7:53 with Galatians 3:19), or from... read more

Joseph Exell

Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary - Acts 7:45-53

CRITICAL REMARKSActs 7:45. Our fathers that came after should be simply our fathers. Jesus is Joshua, as in Hebrews 4:8. Into (lit. in) the possession of the Gentiles.—Meaning that the Ark was brought in to remain in the possession of the nations—i.e., in their land. The R.V. reads, “When they entered on the possession of the nations”; lit. “at” or “in” their taking possession of (the land of) the nations.Acts 7:46. Tabernacle should be “habitation,” permanent abode, like “house” in Acts... read more

William Nicoll

Sermon Bible Commentary - Acts 7:1-60

Acts 6:0 ; Acts 7:0 Stephen. From the history of Stephen we learn: I. That fidelity to truth provokes antagonism; holiness and sin are mutually repellent; love and selfishness are the opposites of each other; and sooner or later the followers of the one will come into collision with the votaries of the other. The opposition of the ungodly is one of the seals to the genuineness of our discipleship; and if we bear ourselves rightly under it, who can tell but that it may be the occasion of... read more

Chuck Smith

Chuck Smith Bible Commentary - Acts 7:1-59

Let's turn tonight to Acts chapter 7.In the early church when a dispute arose among the Grecians--that is, those Jews of the Grecian culture. They were actually Jews, but they had followed the Grecian culture, which was a universal culture as the result of Alexander the Great's conquest of the world. He left little pockets of Greek culture in the major areas and in Jerusalem. There were many who were no longer kosher. No longer following the Hebrew culture. But had adopted the Grecian culture,... read more

Joseph Sutcliffe

Sutcliffe's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments - Acts 7:1-60

The scope and design of St. Stephen’s defence before the council will be better understood, if it be properly analyzed. The rulers construed his defence to import, that the glory of their temple should wane; that the institutions of Moses were about to be superseded; and that the rulers did always resist the Holy Ghost. First, he describes the state of Abraham while he dwelt in Haran, as a state of uncircumcision when he received the promise of the Messiah, that in his seed all the families of... read more

Joseph Exell

The Biblical Illustrator - Acts 7:1-53

Acts 7:1-53Then said the high priest, Are these things so?The high priest and his questionThis functionary was probably Theophilus, son-in-law of Caiaphas. The ex-officio president of the council called for the defence against the charge of blasphemy (Acts 6:13-14). The question, equivalent to guilty or not guilty, appears to have been put with great mildness, possibly under the influence of the angel-like aspect. (Bp. Jacobson.)And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken.--Stephen’s... read more

Joseph Exell

The Biblical Illustrator - Acts 7:51-53

Acts 7:51-53Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears.Stephen’s change of toneI. Justified.1. This was not the first Christian sermon that the Jews or the Sanhedrin had heard. Otherwise, possibly, such vehement and unsparing denunciations had been out of place. They had already heard of Christ twice from His inspired messengers, and he did not speak till the ecclesiastical rulers had shown a determined animus to put their foot on the gospel. It was to a council who had, and still were,... read more

Group of Brands