Ver. 52. τίνα τῶν προφ.- ἀσυνδέτως, to mark the vehemence of the speech, as above, verse 51: cf. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16 for the general statement, and for individual cases, Jeremiah, Amos, and probably Isaiah, the prophet just quoted. We may compare the words of our Lord, Matt. v. 12, Luke xiii. 34, and also Luke xi. 49, Matt. xxiii. 29-37 where the same words ἐδίωξαν and ἀπέκτειναν are used of the treatment of the prophets.—«xal ἀπέκ.: ‘“‘they even slew ’’—perhaps the force of καί (Wendt), ‘‘they slew them also”’ (Κεπάα]]).---ἐλεύσεως: only here in the N.T., not in LXX or Apocrypha, or
200
οὗ νῦν ὑμεῖς προδόται καὶ Φονεῖς γεγένησθε]: 53. οἵτινες ἐλάβετε
τὸν νόµον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων, καὶ οὐκ ἐφυλάξατε.
54. ᾽Ακούοντες
δὲ ταῦτα, διεπρίοντο ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔβρυχον τοὺς ὀδόντας
1 γεγενησθε HP, Chrys.; εγενεσθε SABCDE, Orig., so Tisch., W.H., R.V.,
Blass, Weiss, Wendt, Hilg.
in classical writers, but found in Acta Thome 28, and in Iren., i., ΤΟ, in plural, of the first and second advent of Christ (seealso Dion. Hal., iii., 50).-- τοῦ δικαίου, see Acts iii. 14 and note. It has been suggested that it is used here and eise- where of our Lord from His own em- ployment of the same word in Matt. xxiii. 29, where He speaks of the tombs τῶν δικαίων whom the fathers had slain whilst the children adorned their sepul- chres. But it is more probable that the word was applied to our Lord from the LXX use of it, cf Isa. liii, τι. Even those Jews who rejected the idea of an atoning Messiah acknowledged that His personal righteousness was His real claim to the Messianic. dignity, Weber, Fiidische Theologie, p. 362; Taylor, Say- ings of the Fewish Fathers, p. 185, second edition. We cannot forget that one of those present who heard St. Stephen’s burning words was himself to see the Just One and to carry on the martyr’s work, cf. xxii. 14, ἰδεῖν τὸν δίκαιον κ.τ.λ. —yviv ἐγένεσθε: “of whom ye have now become,” R.V., the spirit of their fathers was still alive, and they had acted as their fathers had done; ὑμεῖς again em- phatic.
Ver. 53. οἵτινες, quippe qui (“ ye who,” R.V.), as often in Acts and Epistles not simply for identification, but when as here the conduct of the persons already mentioned is further enlarged upon (Α]- ford), cf. viii. 15, ix. 35,’X. 41, 47, and Winer-Schmiedel, p. 235, but see also Blass, Grammatik, p. 169.—eis διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων : “as it was ordained by angels,” R.V. ets: at the appointment of, cf. its use in Matt. xii. 41, or better eis as in ver. 21 = received the law as ordinances of angels (νόµον being regarded as an aggregate of single acts and so with plural ‘“ ordinances”), so Rendall, who takes εἰς = ὡς, and Page, cf. Heb. xi. 8, {.ε., it was no human ordinance. But see on the other hand Wendt’s note, p. 192, where he points out that the law was not received as commands given by angels but by God. This was undoubtedly the case, but St. Stephen was here probably referring to the current tradition in Philo
and Josephus, and LXX, Deut. xxxiii. 2. ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι pet αὐτοῦ, cf. Ps. Ixvii. 17; Philo, De Somn., p. 642 Mang., so Jos., Ant., xv., 5, 3, and also Book of Fubilees, chap. i. (see Wetstein and Lightfoot (J. B.) on Gal. iii. το). Others again take εἰς = ἐν, ‘‘accepistis legem abangelis promulgatam”’ =§.atac- σόντων ἀγγέλων, so Blass. Certainly it does not seem possible to take διαταγή = διάταξις = agmen dispositum (cf. Ju- dith i. 4, viii. 36), and to render “ pre- sentibus angelorum ordinibus,” so that here also εἰς = ἐν (Meyer and others). Lightfoot (J.) takes the “‘ angels” as = Moses and the Prophets; Surenhusius as = the elders of the people, whilst St. Chrysostom sees a2 reference to the angel of the burning bush. It must not be thought that St. Stephen is here de- preciating the Law. From a Christian standpoint it might of course be urged that as Christ was superior to the angels, so the introduction of angels showed the inferiority of the Law to the Gospel (ef. Heb. ii. 2, Gal. iii. 19), but St. Stephen’s point is that although the Law had been given with such notable sanctions, yet his hearers had not kept it, and that therefore they, not he, were the real law-breakers.— ov ἐφύλαξατε: “cum omnibus phylacteriis vestris,”’ Bengel. Note the rhetorical power of the words cf. ver. 25 (Page).