BIBLE IN TEN

Acts 7:27

Tuesday, 3 May 2022
 
“But he who did his neighbor wrong pushed him away, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? Acts 7:27
 
The previous verse had Moses trying to reconcile the Israelites who were fighting. That now continues with, “But he who did his neighbor wrong.”
 
In the commentary of the previous verse, a proverb was cited, warning people to not get involved in a quarrel that is not their own. The reason is that one or both of the people are bound to turn and bite at you. In this case, it is the one who was the wrongdoer in the argument. He is obviously a bully, and he has taken offense at someone attempting to correct his wrongdoing. With his state of anger turned towards Moses, it says he then “pushed him away.”
 
This is not recorded in the Exodus account –
 
“And when he went out the second day, behold, two Hebrew men were fighting, and he said to the one who did the wrong, ‘Why are you striking your companion?’14 Then he said, ‘Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you intend to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?’” Exodus 2:13, 14
 
Stephen’s words are as much a theological addition as anything else. A main point of what he is conveying is the rebellious nature of Israel in general, especially to those in authority over them or those who are willing to guide and instruct them, most especially the Lord.
 
In His incarnation, this is exactly what they had done. They had “pushed him away,” rejecting His appointed authority over them. The similarity continues with the final words of the verse, where Stephen says this bully was “saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?’”
 
It was obvious that Moses was in a place of authority, even if it was only based on his adopted family’s status. His position, then, entitled him a level of respect not seen in his treatment by this miscreant. But this person’s actions are recorded specifically as a type of all of Israel throughout their history, pushing the authority of Moses (meaning the law that came through him) away. In this, they “pushed away” the authority of the Lord who gave that law through Moses.
 
Further, they “pushed away” the Lord Jesus who not only fulfilled the law but who then initiated a New Covenant in His blood. They rejected Him as their ruler, and they rejected Him as their judge. Ironically, in rejecting Jesus, they fell back on Moses (meaning the law), the same leader they had constantly rejected over their entire history –
 
“Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:45-47
 
Life application: As a reminder to each of us, we need to not assume that we are any better than Israel. We read the words of the Old Testament, and even into the New, and we say, “Boy, they really were a disobedient nation. They rejected Moses and went their own way constantly.” This is true, they did. But Moses’ words came from the Lord.
 
Today, we have the word of the Lord through the apostles. And yet, do we faithfully follow what He says? Even on the best of days, we fall short of all that is expected of us. Some more than others. But when we are not obedient to what is given in the epistles, we are just like Israel.
 
Let us consider this, especially in 1) adding to the word things that are not in the word – pet peeves, legalistic precepts, and so on, 2) taking from the word (meaning not doing) things that are explicit,   3) mishandling the word by not following sound rules of biblical interpretation. We must be especially careful to KNOW THE WORD, or we can never do these things with any reliability. Our doctrine will be at the whims of whatever we are told, but it will not be backed up with our own knowledge of whether what we are told is actually correct or not.
 
Glorious Heavenly Father, thank You for Your grace and tender mercy upon us through the giving of Your Son. Help us to show our thanks by desiring to know more about Him, about what He has done, and about how that comes about through knowing Your word. May it be so, to Your glory. Amen.
 

Acts 7:26

Monday, 2 May 2022
 
And the next day he appeared to two of them as they were fighting, and tried to reconcile them, saying, ‘Men, you are brethren; why do you wrong one another?’ Acts 7:26
 
Stephen will now explain the words of the previous verse concerning Moses. There, it said, “For he supposed that his brethren would have understood that God would deliver them by his hand, but they did not understand.” Their not understanding begins to be explained with the words, “And the next day he appeared to two of them.”
 
The word used signifies that he appeared in an unexpected way or suddenly. It is the kind of appearance that would describe someone having a vision or being sent from God. The use of this word is clearly hinting at the advent of Christ Jesus who came in an unexpected and sudden way As for Moses, this unexpected appearance occurred “as they were fighting.”
 
One gets the sense of two men having a fight and Moses is suddenly there, as if he was destined to be the one to bring peace between the two. It is at this time, and with this unexpected appearance that Moses “tried to reconcile them.”
 
The phrase is more literally rendered, “urged them to peace.” One can see a fight going on today and another person coming up and saying, “Hey guys, lighten up and calm down. There is no need for this!” Moses feels he is doing the right thing. It was laid upon his heart to visit his brethren, and instead of finding a group that is united and caring of one another, he finds fighting. In this state of things, he looks to bring reconciliation, “saying, ‘Men, you are brethren; why do you wrong one another?’”
 
Stephen gives more information than the original account in Exodus, which reads –
 
“And when he went out the second day, behold, two Hebrew men were fighting, and he said to the one who did the wrong, ‘Why are you striking your companion?’” Exodus 7:13
 
Stephen acknowledges the bond between the two and uses that as an anchor to then question why they would have enmity for one another. His words are undoubtedly chosen to reveal the attitude of Israel towards Jesus. That will be more fully expressed in the verses to come. Moses came to deliver his people from the bondage of Egypt and to unite them as a people under the Lord. Jesus came to deliver His people from the bondage of sin and to unite them as children of God.
 
Life application: Solomon was an observant man. He was able to look at the world around him and see how things should work, what is effective or ineffective, what will lead to peace and what will lead to trouble, and so on. It could be that he was reading this account of Moses from Exodus and then thought about other similar instances he had seen and then penned the words of this proverb –
 
“He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his ownIs like one who takes a dog by the ears.” Proverbs 26:17
 
Taking a dog by the ears means you are more than likely going to get bit. Such is true when you step into an already explosive situation. The two who are quarreling are set on fixing the matter themselves. When someone who has no stake in the matter sticks his nose into the fight, it is like bringing along a bucket of gasoline and an already lit match. Things will probably not go well.
 
Instead of bringing peace and reconciliation, the two who are fighting will find the interference unacceptable and are bound to take out their frustration on the meddler first before finishing their own quarrel. Moses didn’t see this, and to this day, those who fail to heed the words of proverbs will continue to make exactly the same mistake. Human nature doesn’t change, so to gain wisdom, be sure to read and apply the words of Proverbs to your life.
 
Lord God, thank You for the wisdom Your word provides. If we will just apply it to our lives, things will go better for sure. Help us to display wisdom by reading and taking heed to Your word. You created us, and You have given the manual for proper operating conditions concerning us. Therefore, Lord, help us to tweak our walk before You so that all things will go smoothly! Amen.
 

Acts 7:25

Sunday, 1 May 2022
 
For he supposed that his brethren would have understood that God would deliver them by his hand, but they did not understand. Acts 7:25
 
Stephen’s previous words were that of Moses defending one of the Israelites by striking down an Egyptian. With that, he continues by saying, “For he supposed that his brethren would have understood that God would deliver them by his hand, but they did not understand.”
 
Again, as with the previous verse, the translation does not follow the action of the Greek which includes present tense verbs. It is active and alive, and it is better rendered, “and he was supposing his brothers might understand that God, through his hand is giving salvation. But they did not understand.” Despite the translation, we will continue with the NKJV, beginning with, “For he supposed that his brethren would have understood.”
 
Moses certainly was known to have been of Israel. That can be inferred from the words of Exodus 2:14 where Moses is set in contrast to the Egyptian. Being of Israelite birth, he then must have assumed that they would acknowledge this and welcome him as one of their own. However, such was not the case. Not knowing their attitude would be unaccepting, after defending his brother Israelite, he thought that surely they were seeing “that God would deliver them by his hand.”
 
In his thinking, it seemed obvious, “I was born of Israel, I was drawn out of the Nile and rescued from death, I have been raised in Pharaoh’s house and understand the culture of Egypt. These people will recognize that I have taken their side and see that I am here to provide salvation from their oppressors.” It is a logical possibility of what went on in Moses’ mind. And yet, Stephen says, “but they did not understand.”
 
Stephen’s words are certainly given to tie what Moses did to the coming of Jesus. He was born an Israelite, He was obviously well learned despite not being schooled (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:2), He had come to free the people from their bondage, and so on. And yet Israel “did not understand.” The parallel is being expressed right to the faces of the leading council of the nation, and yet they sat there not comprehending in the slightest what Stephen was talking about.
 
Life application: Presuppositions lead to cognitive dissonance. When we suppose we know what is correct about a matter, such as a particular doctrine in the Bible, we will then close out anything from coming in and challenging what we think we know. That is cognitive dissonance. It is a state of mental discomfort resulting from being exposed to conflicting attitudes, beliefs, values, and so on.
 
We don’t want to think we are wrong, and so we mentally shut off opposing views without due consideration. If we believe that Jesus is not God, we will be prone to shutting out any thought that refutes or challenges our belief. This will go so far as denying the obvious.
 
If the blue sky is equated to Christ’s deity, we know that it is perfectly evident. It is something anyone will acknowledge who is honestly willing to admit. But if someone has been told that the sky is brown, and that is what he has accepted, he will shut out anything that clashes with his presupposition.
The same is true with any biblical doctrine. The Bible teaches that the rapture and other end-times events will happen in a particular sequence. This sequence is perfectly understandable as it has been laid out by Paul. It actually takes little effort to grasp what he outlines. And yet, there are many, many views on when the rapture will occur.
 
When a person is presented with a suitable explanation of the proper outline, if he already believes it is different, then the black and white words on the paper mean very little to him. They will be ignored or argued against with fallacious thinking, irrelevant side arguments, and so on. The true and correct reading will be ignored and even belittled.
 
Let us be willing to acknowledge that maybe we are wrong. We should then be willing to consider other options until they have been fully researched and proven right or wrong. As the word says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
 
Lord God, help us to put aside incorrect ideas about what is presented in Your word. Until we have done the hard work, may we be willing to acknowledge that what we initially believed may – in fact – be wrong. Your word is big and complicated, and we are prone to error. But You give more grace when we will humble ourselves and acknowledge our errors. Thank You for Your grace. Amen.

Acts 7:24

Saturday, 30 April 2022
 
And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended and avenged him who was oppressed, and struck down the Egyptian. Acts 7:24
 
Stephen previously spoke of Moses being forty years old and how at that time “it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the children of Israel.” Now Stephen’s words continue with words that are active and alive, using participles. A better rendering of the entire set of words than that of the NKJV would be –
 
“And having seen a certain one being wronged, he defended and did avenge him being oppressed, having struck down the Egyptian” (CG).
 
As for the words, the NKJV begins with, “And seeing one of them suffer wrong.” That is recorded in Exodus 2 –
 
“Now it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brethren and looked at their burdens. And he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren.” Exodus 2:11
 
It was already made clear from the context of the previous verse that it is an Israelite that is being mistreated. Further, the previous verse noted that it had come into Moses’ heart (literally: it arose upon his heart) to visit his brethren. As such, the desire to be with his true kin was impelling him to join with them. As this is so, he now perceives the injustice against this Israelite. With that, Stephen says, “he defended and avenged him who was oppressed.”
 
The Greek words used are carefully chosen. The word translated as “defended” is only found here. Vincent’s Word Studies notes that “The word means originally to ward off from one’s self, with a collateral notion of requital or revenge.” Also, the word translated as “avenged” is found in the parable of the unjust judge of Luke 18 –
 
“Then the Lord said, ‘Hear what the unjust judge said. 7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? 8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?’” Luke 186-8
 
Moses is there to avenge this Israelite in the same manner that God will avenge those who call upon Him. But, as will be seen, Israel failed to see Moses’ intent. For now, Stephen concludes with, “and struck down the Egyptian.” That is seen in the continuing Exodus narrative –
 
“So he looked this way and that way, and when he saw no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” Exodus 2:12
 
Stephen gives the main details that sufficiently connect Moses’ actions on behalf of Israel to hopefully wake up his audience to Jesus’ parallel actions on behalf of Israel.
 
Life application: Moses killed another man who was doing him no personal harm. It is a fact of the story. The Bible doesn’t hide such things or try to sugarcoat them. It simply gives the facts and allows the narrative to continue. David did something like this when he had Uriah the Hittite killed after first committing adultery with Uriah’s wife.
 
Despite these things, they are both considered great men before God, even champions of the biblical narrative. The reason this is so is that their hearts were right toward and before the Lord. They both failed at key points in their lives, but they didn’t allow their failures to define who they were as people. Rather, they acknowledged their actions and pressed on in humility and faithfulness to the Lord.
 
The Lord understands our failings, He knows our every imperfection, and because of Jesus, our sins are forgiven. Let us be grateful for this, mindful of our need to correct our deficiencies, and let us do our best to live faithfully before the Lord all our days. When we fail, our hearts should be convicted and remorseful, but they should also be determined to glorify God for His abundant and merciful faithfulness to us through the giving of Christ Jesus.
 
How blessed we are for what You have done for us in Christ, O God. We have failed You; we have been as enemies toward You, and yet You gave Your Son to reconcile us to Yourself. What is it that would prompt such an offer of grace and mercy? We are reconciled! Praise God! You have reconciled us through the shed blood of Jesus! Hallelujah and Amen.

Acts 7:23

Friday, 29 April 2022
 
“Now when he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the children of Israel. Acts 7:23
 
Stephen’s last words spoke of Moses being learned in all the wisdom of Egypt, something not referred to in the Old Testament. He also referred to Moses being mighty in words and deeds. Now, Stephen gives another insight not previously recorded in Scripture, saying, “Now when he was forty years old.”
 
The translation falls short. The verb used is pléroó, to fulfill. Furthermore, it is imperfect. It more closely says, “And when a period of forty years was fulfilling to him.” In other words, it is as if his life was coming to a set point where there would be a change in him. At that time, an inner impulse came upon him. As Stephen notes, “it came into his heart.”
 
The Greek bears an idiom, saying, “it arose upon his heart.” It is as if this inner impulse suddenly activated and arose into his thinking (the heart being the seat of reasoning and understanding) that he had not previously experienced. It is similar to the words of the Greek translation of Jeremiah 3:16. There, referring to the Ark of the Covenant, it says that “it shall not ascend upon the heart.” As for Moses, nothing is said of why this came about, but it is the timing of the event that opens up the narrative. He was forty at this time. 
 
As this is so, Moses’ life was divided up into three periods of forty years. He was in Egypt till he was forty. He went to Midian and was there forty years until his calling. He then led Israel for forty years. Bullinger defines the number forty by associating it “with a period of probation, trial, and chastisement—(not judgment, like the number 9, which stands in connection with the punishment of enemies, but the chastisement of sons, and of a covenant people). It is the product of 5 and 8, and points to the action of grace (5), leading to and ending in revival and renewal (8).”
 
This very suitably defines the periods of Moses’ life. Taken together they equal one hundred and twenty, the time recorded as the life of Moses upon his death (Deuteronomy 34:7). Of that, Bullinger notes that the number one hundred and twenty “is made up of three forties (3x40=120). Applied to time therefore it signifies a divinely appointed period of probation.”
 
As Moses is emblematic of the law, this is a marvelously fulfilled pattern. As for Stephen’s words, they continue with “to visit his brethren, the children of Israel.” This is what arose upon his heart. It was an inner impulse probably weighing upon him to discover his roots and to understand who he was as a person. With this mindset, Stephen will next continue the narrative.
 
By specifically naming them as “the children of Israel,” it is a clear indication that there should be a bond of fellowship between them. Upon his coming to them, they should acknowledge him as their own and treat him accordingly.
 
Life application: In this verse, one can see the guiding hand of the Lord in how He is working out the redemptive narrative to meet His plan. It is like the call of Abraham, the seemingly chance meeting of Abraham’s servant with Rebekah at a well, and so on. Various things occur that seem unrelated or through simple good luck, but each was purposefully arranged in order to lead His chosen instruments through history until it finally arrives at Jesus.
 
This will continue to be true at the rapture of the church. The Restrainer will be taken out of the way, and only then will the antichrist be revealed. There is nothing arbitrary about how the events of history are unfolding. The plan is known to God, it is set, and it will come to pass.
 
This should not lead us to a fatalistic attitude though. We are living out our lives as individuals, and God is not forcing us into decisions. We can sit on the porch all day and wait for a welfare check, or we can be industrious and get to work. Those are personal choices, and we will be accountable for each such thing we do.
 
Despite this, we should be comforted that there is a process that is occurring around us that has been set and that we will participate in when the time has reached its fullness. Because of this, let us not be troubled as those of the world are. Whatever happens to us in this life, it is a part of the human experience. But what will happen to us when Christ comes is a part of His divinely appointed plan for His people.
 
Live in the world, but do not live as the world. In this, we will be demonstrating faith in God’s overarching plan that is guiding us to a very good end.
 
Heavenly Father, help us to not be fearful when troubles or catastrophes occur. May we stand fast on the sure promises You have spoken out to us in Your word, being reassured that a good end will be the result, even if the way is difficult or even dangerous at times. We know that You have all things under control. Hallelujah and amen.
 

Acts 7:22

Thursday, 28 April 2022
 
And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds. Acts 7:22
 
It was just noted that Moses was set out, but Pharaoh’s daughter “took him away and brought him up as her own son.” With that remembered, Stephen next says, “And Moses was learned.”
 
The word is paideuó. It signifies the process of learning, not the result. In other words, this doesn’t mean, “Moses was known for having learned everything.” Instead, it means, “Moses was given training in.” Other than Stephen’s speech, this is not recorded in Scripture. However, Flavius Josephus and Philo both referred to this. The Pulpit Commentary states –
 
“Josephus makes Thermeutis speak of him as ‘of a noble understanding;’ and says that he was ‘brought up with much care and diligence.’ And Philo, in his life of Moses (quoted by Whitby), says he was smiled [skilled] in music, geometry, arithmetic, and hieroglyphics, and the whole circle of arts and sciences.”
 
It is evident from this, as well as verses such as 2 Timothy 3:8 and Jude 1:9, that extrabiblical references were accepted among the people concerning their history. Likewise, Paul cites Greek philosophers in his writings as well. Despite the sources not being inspired, their inclusion in Scripture tells us that those particular things that have been cited should be considered accurate statements concerning what is stated.
 
As for Moses, whatever his final level of education was, he was educated “in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” As noted in the words of the Pulpit Commentary above, this included a wide range of disciplines. It probably also included astrology, medical studies, Egyptian religious rites and practices, various types of divination and dream interpretation, and so on.
 
Moses was aware of these things, as can be seen in the law. For example, there is great structure and poetical beauty in his writings at times, such as the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32. These things can only be speculated on, but by reading what he speaks of, the way he writes, and the things he warns against, a fuller picture of the things he was aware of can be determined. Because of his learning, Stephen next says, “and was mighty in words and deeds.”
 
This refers to his pronouncements and actions in life. His learning gave him the ability to utter forth things that were intelligent, structured, and of great importance. He was also able to turn the things he instructed into action, accomplishing great feats, such as uniting Israel and keeping them united despite all the troubles that they faced, both from without and from within. The statement in Exodus 4:10 does not at all conflict with what Stephen now says –
 
“Then Moses said to the Lord, ‘O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.’”
 
Having a speech impediment is not connected to what Stephen speaks of when he says, “mighty in words.” Words can be written down, they can be communicated by another (such as Aaron), and they can also simply refer to what a word signifies – a matter – and not the speaking out of the word. The words of Moses have immense weight, regardless as to how they may have fumbled off of his lips.
 
Life application: There is often a dilemma among Christians concerning education. Some demand that getting an education in theology is an excuse to reject that person’s doctrine (yes, there are people out there like this). Some think that one should only be trained in the Bible. Some find extrabiblical studies relevant to one degree or another, dismissing some things as unacceptable and claiming other things are acceptable.
 
It is hard to know where education becomes pointless, such as obtaining knowledge merely for the sake of having it, but without any valid reason for having it. Those things can be debated forever. But one should not dismiss being educated as leading to being tainted and unqualified to teach the Bible. For example, someone might learn about heresies in order to know how to identify that which is heretical.
 
Further, someone may use the writings of Greek philosophers as a way of conveying a biblical truth that can then be more readily understood. As noted above, Paul cites several Greek philosophers. Some are stated in Acts as recorded by Luke, and some are in Paul’s own writings.
 
In regard to the Bible, the first and most important thing is to know it sufficiently before any other training in relation to it is obtained. If one is trained in theology without first knowing the Bible, then two things will immediately be true. The first is that he will have no idea if what he is being trained in is actually in accord with the word or not.
 
The second is that once he is trained in that theology, he will have presuppositions based on that training which will then bias his analysis of the Bible from that point on. It is very hard to mentally separate oneself from what he has been trained in, even when provided evidence that his training was faulty.
 
For example, a Jehovah’s Witness will be trained, in advance of his knowing the Bible, that Jesus is not God. From that point on, he will always believe this, even when provided all the evidence necessary to validate that Jesus is, in fact, God. It is a state known as cognitive dissonance, and it is an extremely hard thing to overcome.
 
Only when the Bible is read and understood to a sufficient degree should a person be introduced to various theologies. And it is always good to learn as many viewpoints on those particular theologies as possible. Understanding the variations in thought can help a person process what he already knows and come to a right decision about what is correct and what is to be rejected. Above all, know the Bible intimately first. From there, never stop checking the Bible for confirmation of what you are told.
 
Glorious God Almighty, give us the desire to seek Your word daily and give us the ability to remember what is there. Help us in this, O Lord, so that when we are presented with a teaching on its contents, we can properly evaluate if what we have been told is correct or not. May it be so, to Your glory and for our benefit. Amen.

Acts 7:21

Wednesday, 27 April 2022
 
But when he was set out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him away and brought him up as her own son. Acts 7:21
 
Stephen had just previously said that Moses was brought up in his father’s house for three months. He next notes, “But when he was set out.” That refers to what is stated in the narrative of Exodus 2 –
 
“But when she could no longer hide him, she took an ark of bulrushes for him, daubed it with asphalt and pitch, put the child in it, and laid it in the reeds by the river’s bank. 4 And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him.” Exodus 2:3, 4
 
The brevity of Stephen’s words in relation to the Exodus narrative shows that the story of Moses was universally known. Instead of giving the details, he simply acknowledges the account in the simplest of words. The events themselves would automatically be mentally filled in by each member of the council.
 
The word translated as “But when he was set out” means that he was exposed. The same word is used three more times in Acts where it means to explain, such as when Peter explained events that occurred (Acts 11:4) or when Paul explained the significance of the kingdom of God (Acts 28:23). Stephen continues with, “Pharaoh’s daughter took him away.”
 
Again, the few words of Stephen are much more detailed in Exodus –
 
“Then the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river. And her maidens walked along the riverside; and when she saw the ark among the reeds, she sent her maid to get it. 6 And when she opened it, she saw the child, and behold, the baby wept. So she had compassion on him, and said, ‘This is one of the Hebrews’ children.’
7 Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, ‘Shall I go and call a nurse for you from the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for you?’
8 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, ‘Go.’ So the maiden went and called the child’s mother. 9 Then Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, ‘Take this child away and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages.’ So the woman took the child and nursed him.” Exodus 2:5-9
 
The word translated as “took him away” is quite interesting. It is anaireó. It is almost always translated as kill, end life, murder, put to death, and so on. For example, it is used this way in Acts 7:28. In one instance, Hebrews 10:9, it is used to signify the taking away of the Old Covenant as it is replaced with the New. It is a compound verb coming from ana, a word giving the sense of upwards, and haireó, meaning to choose or take.
 
In this, Vincent’s Word Studies notes –
 
“Used among Greek writers of taking up exposed children; also of owning new-born children. So Aristophanes: ‘I exposed (the child) and some other woman, having taken it, adopted (ανείλετο) it’ (‘Clouds,’ 531). There is no reason why the meaning should be limited to took him up from the water (as Gloag).”
 
In other words, some (like Gloag) might think, “This is referring to Pharaoh’s daughter taking Moses up from the water of the Nile.” But it is surely signifying more than this. It is the ending of one part of his life and the entrance of a new aspect. She “took him up” from his life as a Hebrew “and brought him up as her own son.”
 
This is noted in Exodus 2 as well –
 
“And the child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. So she called his name Moses, saying, ‘Because I drew him out of the water.’” Exodus 2:10
 
The meaning of Stephen’s words is that Moses was both nourished and educated as a member of Pharaoh’s home. What is ironic, and what may (?) be on Stephen’s mind, is that just as Moses was taken away from his life as a Hebrew in order to become the deliverer of Israel, so Moses (the law) must be taken away in order for Israel to be delivered from the law’s bondage. As noted, the word used to describe this is also found in Hebrews 10 –
 
“Previously saying, ‘Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them’ (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, ‘Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.’ He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Hebrews 10:8-10
 
Whether this was on Stephen’s mind or not, the ironic nature of the use of the word to signify the changes concerning Moses (representative of the law) is remarkable.
 
Life application: The words of Exodus, as confirmed here, show us that Pharaoh’s daughter was an exceptional financier. We can deduce this because she went down to the bank of the Nile and drew out a little prophet.
 
Sometimes, a little humor is a good thing.
 
Lord God, what a treasure Your word is. It is filled with wisdom, history, poetry, irony, and revealed glory. In it, we find the answer to our needs. In it, we find rest for the weary soul. In it, we find Jesus. Thank You for this wonderful, beautiful word. Amen.

Acts 7:20

Tuesday, 26 April 2022
 
At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God; and he was brought up in his father’s house for three months. Acts 7:20
 
Stephen’s previous words referred to the treacherous dealing of the people by the king of Egypt. This included, “making them expose their babies, so that they might not live.” With that thought introduced, he next says, “At this time Moses was born.”
 
The word translated as “time” signifies a fitting season, as if the opportune moment. In this, Stephen is certainly indicating that God planned it out that this would be the proper time for the events leading up to the Exodus to take place, according to His promise to Abraham hundreds of years earlier.
 
It is at this fitting and opportune time that Moses was born. Moses means “He who draws out.” It is based upon his being drawn out of the Nile, but it certainly is a prophetic anticipation of him being the one to draw out the word of God (the law) to then pass it onto the people. In this, he is a type, or picture, of the coming Christ – the Word of God – who draws out the will of God through His word in order to fulfill it. These things are more fully explained in the Superior Word sermons that begin in Exodus and progress through Deuteronomy.
 
As for Stephen, his words continue with, “and was well pleasing to God.” The word translated as “well pleasing” is asteios, and it is only found here and in Hebrews 11:23 where it also speaks of Moses. The word comes from astu, a city. And so, it literally means, “belonging to the city.” This is because a city is considered a place of polished manners and living. Thus, one could paraphrase the word as “he was a city dweller,” and the sense may be brought out.
 
The idea of him being pleasing “to God” is both superlative and idiomatic. It refers to anything that is beautiful, grand, lofty, and so on. Albert Barnes explains this –
 
“Thus, Psalm 36:7, ‘mountains of God,’ mean lofty mountains; Psalm 80:11, ‘cedars of God,’ mean lofty, beautiful cedars. Thus, Nineveh is called ‘a great city to God’ (Jonah 3:3, Greek), meaning a very great city. The expression here simply means that Moses was ‘very fair,’ or handsome.”
 
With this understood, Stephen finishes with, “and he was brought up in his father’s house for three months.”
 
Because of the elegant nature of the child, the parents were emboldened and, as it says in Hebrews 11, “they were not afraid of the king’s command.” The two aspects, that of the beauty of the child, and that of the parents not caring about obeying an immoral command, combined into their determination to hide the child. In the Hebrews reference, it is ascribed to them as an act of faith. He was protected during these early months because of this.
 
Life application: Hebrews 11 describes this same event, saying that what the parents did was an act of faith. In this, they were recorded in the Bible’s Hall of Fame of Faith for their deed. Though the things we do will not be recorded in the Bible, they will be remembered by God. Those that are of faith will receive their reward. Those that are not, will not.
 
If a pastor mandates tithing in his church, there is no faith in the giving. It is considered an obligation and the congregants, rightly or wrongly, will give (or not give) based on his words. Only if a person knows that tithing is not a New Covenant precept is he freed from this legalistic nonsense. His giving, then, can be considered an act of faith.
 
In other words, when a pastor mandates tithing – something contrary to the word of God – he denies his congregants who are uneducated in the word the blessing of rewards for their giving. This is all the more poignant when Paul, speaking of eating various foods, says, “for whatever is not from faith is sin.” Though referring to foods, the precept is universal in its scope.
 
We are to live our lives in faith. When we give, it is to be because we have faith in the giving, not because of a legalistic mandate that is not to be found in Scripture. The law mandated tithing. Those who did not tithe were guilty before the law. Now that Christians are not under law, but under grace, to be forced to tithe removes faith from the process.
 
Think about this as a simple example for everything you do. What you do, do in faith that you are in the presence of God and that He is evaluating your life and actions as such. In all your ways, acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.
 
Glorious God, thank You that we can live our lives in faith by simply acknowledging You in our thoughts. May we consider our actions, knowing that You are there, and You are with us. As we go forth with this attitude, direct our paths accordingly. Thank You that there can be such an intimate fellowship between us. Thank You for this, O God. Amen.

Acts 7:19

Monday, 25 April 2022
 
This man dealt treacherously with our people, and oppressed our forefathers, making them expose their babies, so that they might not live. Acts 7:19
 
Stephen just referred to “another king” who “arose who did not know Joseph.” He now continues referring to that king, saying, “This man dealt treacherously with our people.” Here, Stephen uses a word found only this one time in Scripture, katasophizomai. It is a compound verb coming from kata (bring down) and sophizó (make wise). As such, it signifies to deal craftily with or to act subtly.
 
This is a reference to the treatment of Israel as is first noted in Exodus 1 –
 
“Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, ‘Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; 10 come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land.’” Exodus 1:8-10
 
Stephen next says, “and oppressed our forefathers.” That is certainly what is next stated in the Exodus narrative –
 
“Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were in dread of the children of Israel. 13 So the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with rigor. 14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage—in mortar, in brick, and in all manner of service in the field. All their service in which they made them serve was with rigor.” Exodus 1:11-14
 
In this state of oppression, Stephen next explicitly describes at least a portion of their treatment with the horrifying words, “making them expose their babies, so that they might not live.”
 
An attack against the male babies was first noted in the ongoing narrative of Exodus –
 
“Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; 16 and he said, ‘When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.’” Exodus 1:15, 16
 
That directive from Pharaoh took an unusual turn and was not effective at meeting his goals, and so he made a command which was intended to reduce the number of Hebrews to a manageable level –
 
“So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, ‘Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.’” Exodus 1:22
 
The narrative, as given by Stephen, has carefully followed the words of Exodus 1, revealing the progression of what happened at that time.
 
Life application: What is unstated by Stephen, but which is something that would have been known to every Israelite, even from their earliest days as the parents talked about their history, is what is said about why the first attempt to reduce the male population failed. That is recorded in Exodus 1 as well –
 
“But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. 18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, ‘Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?’19 And the midwives said to Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.’20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. 21 And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.” Exodus 1:17-21
 
Stephen skipped right over this, and yet by doing so it would have been its own reminder of the events to those he stood before. By simply recalling a story, the memory of the story would come to mind. In not mentioning this portion of it, it would surely have highlighted it in the minds of those who heard. It is in our nature to fill in the blanks of such things.
 
As this is so, it would be a reminder that non-Hebrews had been obedient to the inner moral standard placed in humans by God. They had not committed such a wicked act by being disobedient to the king’s edict. This would be an appeal, all by itself, to have the council consider their own wicked deeds by ignoring the words and actions of Christ and then, later, the obvious signs and wonders that have come through the apostles and which have been done in the name of Jesus.
 
Sometimes, what is left unstated is as poignant as what is openly stated. It is a good tool for each of us to consider. Ecclesiastes 5:2 says, “let your words be few.” It is good advice to remember before God and man. The few words we speak should carry weight, and the words we refrain from speaking can be just as heavy.
 
Lord God Almighty, help us to be wise in our speech, carefully considering everything we have to say, and only speaking out that which is wholesome, helpful, and pleasing in Your sight. It is so easy for us to allow our tongues to go beyond that which is proper, so help us in this Lord! For sure, we need it. Amen.
 

Acts 7:18

Sunday, 24 April 2022
 
till another king arose who did not know Joseph. Acts 7:18
 
As was noted in the previous verse, it said that “when the time of promise drew near which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.” From there, and in accord with the detailed narrative of Exodus, Stephen continues by saying, “till another king arose.”
 
The identity of this king is debated, even today. In his commentary, Albert Barnes gives some possibilities –
 
“It has commonly been supposed to have been the celebrated Rameses, the sixth king of the eighteenth dynasty, and the event is supposed to have occurred about 1559 years before the Christian era. M. Champollion supposes that his name was Mandonei, whose reign commenced in 1585 b.c., and ended 1565 years before Christ (Essay on the Hieroglyphic System, p. 94, 95). Sir Jas. G. Wilkinson supposes that it was Amosis, or Ames, the ‘first’ king of the eighteenth dynasty (Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. 1, pp. 42, 2nd ed.). ‘The present knowledge of Egyptian history is too imperfect to enable us to determine this point’ (Prof. Hackett).”
 
Though the history of Egyptian rulers is much more fully known today, there is still debate on who the king was. Much of this depends on a person’s view of when the events of the biblical narrative actually took place. Regardless of this, it is relevant to understand that the word translated as “another” signifies another of a different kind. HELPS Word Studies defines it as, “héteros (‘another but distinct in kind’) stands in contrast to /állos (‘another of the same kind’). ... [it] ‘emphasizes it is qualitatively different from its counterpart (comparison).’”
 
As such, this is a king, meaning a Pharaoh, that is distinctly different from the one that had previously ruled. Pharaoh at Joseph’s time was accommodating to the Israelites. However, and as will be noted by Stephen, this one will not be. That begins to be reflected in the next words, saying, “who did not know Joseph.”
 
The idea here could be either figurative or literal. If literal, it would mean he was unaware of the rule of the previous Pharaoh. This is unlikely as historical records would have been kept, and there was only a period of sixty-four years from the death of Joseph until the time of the birth of Moses.
 
What is more likely is that the word “know” is to be taken figuratively, as the word in Hebrew, yada, is often used. The Greek word used here, eidó, can also be used in a figurative sense. As such, it would mean that he did not recognize, or care about, the type of rule the previous Pharaoh acknowledged.
 
In other words, and as a suitable example, the founding fathers of the US had a certain type of rule which guided them. It was based on morality, Christian principles, personal industry and accountability, limited government, and so on. To sum them up, we might say, “Men of character.”
 
In contrast to that, one could name any modern democrat president and say he does not “know” or “care about” the type of leaders of the past. Instead, their decisions are based on perversion, anti-Christian principles, collectivism, no accountability for criminal behavior, government control, and so on. To sum them up, we might note them as “Moral minuscules.”
 
This is the type of contrast seen between the two kings. As such, there will be a completely different type of rule over his kingdom. The verse now quoted by Stephen comes from Exodus 1:8 –
 
“Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.”
 
Life application: Because the commentary above touched upon the thought of good leaders and crummy ones, it is worth noting that if you live in a country where you have a right to vote, when you fail to do so and you then have a crummy leader elected over you (at whatever level of government), you are part of the problem. In the end, you have only yourself to blame for not being an active participant in the process which you have a right and a duty to engage in.
 
And more, by withholding one’s vote, that person is – by default – supporting whoever the elected official will be. It is worthy to note the words of James in such a situation –
 
“Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” James 4:17
 
It is reasonable to assume that through inaction, the one who does not work against the wicked, when he has the opportunity to do so, will be held accountable for his chosen path. It is a sobering thing to consider when human life, personal property, and common morality are at stake. Take time to consider this and work to correct that which is evil by exercising your vote. If your candidate loses, it does not mean you didn’t try. Your efforts may have not succeeded, but they were also not in vain.
 
Lord God, how we would love to return to the days of sanity in government and morality within our society. And maybe it will happen. Or it may be that the country in which we live is destined to become as corrupt as the world before the flood. We are almost there already, for sure. No matter what, may we be willing to work against the rising tide of wickedness while we are able. Amen.
 

Acts 7:17

Saturday, 23 April 2022
 
“But when the time of the promise drew near which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt Acts 7:17
 
The previous verse detailed the highly complicated statement from Stephen concerning the purchase of land by Abraham. With that stated, Stephen now continues with another note concerning Abraham. This helps to confirm the evaluation of the previous verse. The narrative is concerning the land of promise and how it is connected to him personally. It explains why Stephen mentioned things the way he did. With that understood, Stephen says, “But when the time of the promise drew near.”
 
This is obviously speaking about the chosen line of inheritance, meaning the line of Jacob through his sons, during their stay in Egypt. It is based on the words of verse 7:15 that said, “So Jacob went down to Egypt; and he died, he and our fathers.”
 
God had said to Abraham “that his descendants would dwell in a foreign land, and that they would bring them into bondage and oppress them” (verse 7:6). That included both Canaan and Egypt. With the time in Egypt drawing to a close, Stephen notes, “which God had sworn to Abraham.”
 
The promise is noted in verse 7:5. Even though Abraham did not receive even as much as the step of a foot, God had promised the land of Canaan to him as a possession. The details about the timing and events were then conveyed and the covenant sign (circumcision) was then noted. After that came many more details concerning how Israel wound up in Egypt, but the connection to Canaan, though seemingly in the background, remained central to everything Stephen was relaying.
 
The entire thought was centered on the promise to Abraham, inclusive of Abraham’s purchase of the land from Hamor the father of Shechem. It is at this time, where the promise to Abraham was to come after four hundred years – and which included bondage and oppression – that “the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.”
 
The exponential growth in Egypt became a central point in the ongoing narrative. That will be seen in the verses to come. But noting it shows this. Israel is no longer a small clan of people consisting of seventy-five relatives. Rather, it has grown into a great multitude. How the Egyptians would deal with such a large group will be conveyed in the verses ahead by Stephen.
 
Life application: Stephen is chronicling the history of his people to the leaders of his people. He isn’t doing this to show them what a great historian he is. He is doing so as an indictment against them for not seeing what God is trying to convey, right from their own history.
 
Many key events in their history, in which God dealt with them intimately, are recorded as being outside of the land of Canaan. They are also prior to the law of Moses. The fact that the promise of the inheritance is prior to the law, and that many of the interactions with God are outside of the inheritance, should clue the leaders of Israel into the fact that Canaan is only typical of something else.
 
Further, that the promise was made prior to the law should clue them in that obtaining it cannot be by law observance. As it was given by promise (an act of grace), and the law is contrary to grace, then the law must simply be a tool to teach the people of Israel their need for grace. Paul explains this quite clearly in Galatians 3.
 
What Stephen is relaying in what may seem to us as somewhat obscure words is something that should have been perfectly understandable to his audience. But even if it went right over their heads, more lessons from Stephen will be forthcoming that will continue to demonstrate Israel’s constant resisting of the Holy Spirit.
 
As this is so, and as the Holy Spirit is intending to highlight the work of God in Christ, then it is no wonder that they missed the significance of Christ Jesus when He came. Keep thinking about how God is revealing Christ in the pages of the Bible as you read. That is the main focus of what God wants us to see.
 
Lord God, the way the Bible is written, it just keeps giving us new things to think about. Even after thousands of years of it being read and studied, new insights continue to come forth. What a precious treasure Your word is. May we be willing to consider it and to apply its precepts to our lives each and every day we live!  Amen.
 

Acts 7:16

Friday, 22 April 2022
 
And they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. Acts 7:16
 
The previous verse noted Jacob going down to Egypt, dying, and then also the fathers (meaning the sons of Israel) also died. Now Stephen turns to something that is out of order in the chronology, but it is a point that reflects an event that occurred with the fathers after their deaths, and so he mentions it now. However, it is a verse that is exceedingly confusing, even to the point where many scholars state it is actually a contradiction or a mistake. Stephen begins by saying, “And they were carried back to Shechem.”
 
The question here is, “Who is this referring to?” If it is referring to Joseph, Jacob, and the fathers, then there becomes a great difficulty in the text. If it is referring to Joseph and the fathers, then there is much less difficulty in what is said. In the previous commentary, this translation was suggested, offsetting Jacob (who represents all of Israel) in parenthesis –
 
“Then Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people. (So Jacob went down to Egypt.) And he [Joseph] died, he and our fathers.”
 
For now, first and foremost, this is referring explicitly to what is noted as the book of Genesis ends –
 
“And Joseph said to his brethren, ‘I am dying; but God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land to the land of which He swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.’ 25 Then Joseph took an oath from the children of Israel, saying, ‘God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here.’ 26 So Joseph died, being one hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.” Genesis 50:24-26
 
What Joseph requested is noted as fulfilled in Joshua 24 –
 
“The bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel had brought up out of Egypt, they buried at Shechem, in the plot of ground which Jacob had bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for one hundred pieces of silver, and which had become an inheritance of the children of Joseph.” Joshua 24:32
 
Nothing is said in the Old Testament concerning the bones of the fathers being carried back. The promise was only made to Joseph, and it was right that Joshua recorded it. However, it is logical that all of the fathers would be carried back for burial, and there are extra-biblical writings that state this is so. The fact that Stephen says it, and that the council did not object, also stands as a witness that it is so. Hence, it can be agreed upon that Stephen’s words reflect what occurred. With that noted, Stephen continues with, “and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought.”
 
Abraham’s name being included here is the problematic portion of the words. Only one purchase of a tomb by Abraham was recorded in Scripture, and that is found in Genesis 23. It is referring to the purchase of the cave of Machpelah in Hebron from Ephron the Hittite. Because of this, Jacob is almost always figured into the commentary of scholars. That would be erroneous. Jacob’s burial is clearly recorded in Genesis 50. He was buried prior to the years of bondage. But because Abraham is mentioned, the assumption is that it is somehow speaking of the cave of Machpelah in Hebron. But then Stephen continues, by saying, “for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem.”
 
The purchase of land from Hamor, the father of Shechem, has already been noted above in the quote from Joshua. But it was Jacob, not Abraham, that was mentioned. So, the logic is that either Stephen used the wrong name (Abraham), or that he used the wrong location (the land bought in Shechem). However, if Jacob is excluded from the thought of those whose bones were carried back and buried, as should be the case, it resolves the first problem. It is only speaking of the fathers (meaning Joseph and his brothers), and it is only speaking of the land in Shechem.
 
Understanding this, the only confusion is why it says “Abraham” instead of “Jacob” in regard to the purchase. In Genesis 12, it says the following –
 
“Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land.7 Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I will give this land.’ And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him.” Genesis 12:6, 7
 
As such, it can be inferred, even if it is not stated, that Abraham purchased the land before building an altar. But even if he did not, Stephen has noted Abraham concerning the land and the future inheritance several times. He will note him again in the coming verse as well. With that understood, Genesis 33 says this of Jacob –
 
“Then Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padan Aram; and he pitched his tent before the city. 19 And he bought the parcel of land, where he had pitched his tent, from the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for one hundred pieces of money. 20 Then he erected an altar there and called it El Elohe Israel.” Genesis 33:18-20
 
This is the same location as where Abraham was, and Jacob probably erected his altar in the same location as did Abraham. In this, and because Jacob is descended from Abraham, his building of the altar and buying of the land is an act of confirming what Abraham had done. As such, the purchase by Jacob can be said to have been made by Abraham.
 
And this is not without precedent elsewhere in Scripture. Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils to Melchizedek in Genesis 14. And yet, the author of Hebrews says that because of this, the tithes of Israel are paid through Abraham to Melchizedek.
 
“Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.” Hebrews 7:4-10
 
A similar type of event has occurred now with Abraham and Jacob. Being so, the purchase of the land by Jacob is a confirmation of the right to the land. It is considered a purchase by Abraham – this would be true whether Abraham originally paid money for the land or not. Abraham, by building an altar, was making a claim on the land for the Lord.
 
The author of Hebrews didn’t just arbitrarily make up the thought of a son paying through the loins of his father, but it would have been an understood precept because of its logical nature. The evidence of this is that the council did not argue the matter. They understood that the land was claimed by Abraham as an altar for the Lord. Jacob confirmed this by first buying the land and then building (rebuilding) the altar of Father Abraham.
 
Life application: Jacob was in the loins of his father Abraham when Abraham erected the altar in Genesis 12. In this, what he has done belongs to him and thus it belongs to his descendants unless it is transferred from him somehow, such as being sold, given away or lost in war, or so on.
 
If Abraham was considered to have owned the land, that land will be passed to the son when it is either gifted to him or when the father dies. But if there is no record of a purchase of the land, there may be a sum later paid to confirm the ownership of that land. If so, that payment would be credited to the past times when the claim had been made by the father.
 
Jacob may have said, “Hamor, I am paying for this land my grandfather claimed when he built an altar on it. I would now like to build an altar on it. To ensure that there is no conflict with you, I am confirming Abraham’s claim by buying the land from you, which you also claim as yours.” In accepting the money, Hamor confirms the land is now Jacob’s. Thus, it would settle all disputes as to who owned it. But the original owner would still be considered by Jacob to be Abraham. Hence, Jacob’s money is credited by him to his father Abraham. 
 
In this, we can see that there is no contradiction or conflict in Stephen’s words. What he has said was fully understood by the council. They allowed him to continue with his discourse without correction or interruption demonstrating that they accepted his words.
 
Lord God, Your word is filled with wonder and delight. It is a treasure house of wisdom and joy! Thank You for Your word that challenges us to seek out its depths and to more fully appreciate the wisdom and care You put into it. Yes, thank You for Your precious word. Amen.