STEPHEJf
STOCKS
015
Temple, and had affirmed that Jesus would cliange the tustora>* of Moses, his adversaries would have been liis own < l.ristian brethren, whereas he was held in the hiyiiest repute by them. Further, Buch words aa 'the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands' can hardlv be taken as implying any disparagement of the temple, since similar language was used by Solomon himself (1 K S-', 2 Ch 6''). Finally, Stephen speaks of the Law in terms of the highest res]>ect (T-"'**); and his references to the call of Abraham in Meso- potamia (v.-), to the Divine favour vouchsafed to Joseph and Moses in Egypt, and to the subsequent revelation accorded to the latter in Midian (v.-"f), while they might be interpreted as signifying that the Divine purpose and blessing were not limited to the Holy Land, are rather to be under- stood in the light of the fact that Stephen repre- sents Canaan as the destination of the Chosen People from the first; the patriarchs are buried there (v.'") as in a country really their own ; and the sojourn in Egypt (still more the deportation to Babylon) is plainly regarded as a misfortune. On the other band, if Stephen was at one with his opponents (as with his brethren) in their high appreciation of the Holy Land, the Law, and the Temple, how could the enlarge of blasphemy arise ? The witnesses might be false, but there must have been some colourable reason for an accusation so definite. But it seems a quite satisfactory answer to this to say that Stephen had attacked the trailitional Law (as did Je-sus Himself, Mt 10'-" = Mk 7''^), which was freely held to have authority equal with the Mosaic, and that he may have urged, in the manner of Isaiah, that ' temple- trending' and external observances did not ensure acceptance with God. It is quite conceivable that such teaching would be misunderstood, and even misrepresented as blasphemy against ' tlie law and this holy place,' or even against God (6"). On this view, then, the speech was not so much the advancing of a new theological position against an older ; its purpose was rather etliical and personal. God had vouchsafed great privileges to the nation, - the land, an ordained leader (Moses), the Law, tht Tai^ernacle, and the Temple, — but they had been rendered of none ellcct by the people s con- tumacy and disobedience. Doubtless, as Spitta makes out, there is an unmistakable intention to draw or suggest a parallel between Moses and Jesus, ' the prophet whom the Lord will raise up unto you . . . like unto me' (7"), and the treat- ment accorded to each ; but this is meant to give point to the general theme of the speech, viz. that the members of the council, and all in league with them, had proved themselves to Ije only too truly the children of ungrateful and unworthy tord'ather? It is thus questionable how far wo fcre entitled to speak of Stephen as the forerunner of St. Paul. Even if we accept Spitta's view that the erection of the Temple is represented by Stephen aa an unauthorized and presuniptuotis act, this is something very dillerent from St. Paul's conception of the national institutions as having had validity /or their own time. Certainlj' Si ephen never asserts the secondary and provisional char- acter of the Law, nor does he suggest the call of the I Jentiles — two of St. Paul's most characteristic tenets. In short, Stephen seems to regard Chris- tianity (as did the apostles gt/.ierally) as the con- tinuation and development of the Divine purpose in the history of Israel ; St. Paul sees in it the begin- ning of a new order of things — another dispensation.
LiTKRATUKK.— Farrar, St. Paul, ch. viii. ; Con^'bt-arc and How- ion, .vf, Paul, ch. ii. : Wcizsucker, Aposttihc Arte, L U-IT. ; l!'<;i(fert, Cfirigtianitt/ in the Apoglitlii: Afjf, 81-9;t ; Spitta, Aii'is'fiieicliichte, p. 105 ft. ; Kxpovitftr'ii Greek Testament, ii., R. J. Knowling, Actt; and commentariej) cited at Acth, vol t p. S6, on relevant chapters. A. GUIKVE.
STEWARD occurs six times in AV of OT. It is used in Gn 15- of Eliezer, where for 'steward of my house ' RV rightly substitutes ' he that shall be possessor of my house ' (Heb. -n-s pB'^-ji. For the correct text and meaning of this verse see Kautzsch- Socin's Genesis, Comm. of Del. and DUlm. ad loc, and above all Ball's note in Haupt's OT). In Gn 4319 441.4 -steward 'is tr° (both AV and RV) of vi'3 "7!; iK'K ' he who was over his (Joseph's) house.' The same tr° is given by RV in 4.'5"', wliere the Heb. is the same, but A v arbitrarily and incon- sistently gives 'ruler.' See art. Joseph, vol. iL p. 772". In 1 K IG'-" for AV ' steward of hif (Elah's) house' RV substitutes 'who was over <Ae house- hold' (n-;n). See art. Kl\t;, vol. ii. p. 843". The only remaining instance in AV is 1 Ch 28^ The Heb. is c'Tf, which RV tr. 'rulers.' In Dn 1", where AV gives Mklzai: as a jirop. name, RV is perh. correct in translating 'the steward' (is^?? with the article shows at least that we have lieie some title, although its meaning is not certain).