[390] Entha men eucharistein edei, A, B, C. D. F., but N. and Cat. acharistein.--E. Kai enpha men autous acharistein en. Edd. euch.
[391] This clause, omitted by A. B. C , is preserved by N. and the Catena. The calf was one, yet they called it Gods: on which St. Chrys. remarks elsewhere, that they added polytheism to idolatry.--The next sentence may perhaps be completed thus: "that they did not even know that there is One God."--Edd. from E.F.D. "So frantic are they, that they know not what they say."
[392] dia gar touto episemainetai. The meaning is: Stephen was accused of speaking against "the customs,"--sacrifices, temple, feasts, etc. Therefore he significantly points to that critical conjuncture from which these "customs" date their introduction: namely, the Provocation at Horeb. Prior to that, he tells of "living oracles," life-giving precepts: after it, and as its consequence, sacrifices, etc., those statutes which were not good, and ordinances by which a man shall not live, as God says by Ezekiel. Not a word of sacrifice till then: and the first mention is, of the sacrifices offered to the calf. In like manner, "they rejoiced," "the people ate and drank, and rose up to play:" and in consequence of this, the feasts were prescribed: kai euphrainonto, phesin; dia touto kai heortai.--'Episemainetai might be rendered, "he marks," "puts a mark upon it" (so the innovator, who substitutes, touto kai Dauid episemainomenos legei): we take it passively, "there is a mark set over it--it is emphatically denoted." In the active, the verb taken intransitively means "to betoken or announce itself," "make its first appearance."--In the Treatise adv. Judæos, iv. §6. tom. i. 624. C. St. Chrysostom gives this account of the legal sacrifices: "To what purpose unto Me is the multitude of your sacrifices? etc. (Isaiah i. 11, ff.) Do ye hear how it is most plainly declared, that God did not from the first require these at your hands? Had He required them, He would have obliged those famous saints who were before the Law to observe this practice. Then wherefore has He permitted it now?' In condescension to your infirmity. As a physician in his treatment of a delirious patient, etc.: thus did God likewise. For seeing them so frantic in their lust for sacrifices, that they were ready, unless they got them, to desert to idols: nay not only ready, but that they had already deserted, thereupon He permitted sacrifices. And that this is the reason, is clear from the order of events. After the feast which they made to the demons, then it was that He permitted sacrifices: all but saying: Ye are mad, and will needs sacrifice: well then, at any rate sacrifice to Me.'"--(What follows may serve to illustrate the brief remark a little further on, Kai he aichmalosia kategoria tes kakias.) "But even this, He did not permit to continue to the end, but by a most wise method, withdrew them from it...For He did not permit it to be done in any place of the whole world, but in Jerusalem only. Anon, when for a short time they had sacrificed, he destroyed the city. Had He openly said, Desist, they, such was their insane passion for sacrificing, would not readily have complied. But now perforce, the place being taken away, He secretly withdrew them from their frenzy." So here: "Even the captivity impeaches the wickedness (which was the cause of the permission of sacrifice.")
[393] Our passage here follows the lxx. which speaks of Moloch and Remphan. The terms in the original (vid. R.V.: Amos v. 25-27) are "Siccuth" and "Chiun." It is a disputed point whether these are in the prophecy names of divinities or whether they mean respectively "tabernacle" and "shrine" (or image). The difficulty lies in the ambiguity of the Hebrew text. The name Moloch being akin to the Hebrew word for king (mlk), confusion might easily arise. The N.T. text varies from the lxx. only in adding the word proskunein (43) to lay emphasis upon the charge of idolatry, and in replacing Damascus by Babylon (43), an interpretation from the standpoint of subsequent history. The statement of our text that the Israelites fell into the worship of these divinities in the wilderness rests upon extra-Pentateuchal tradition, derived, perhaps, from such prohibitions of Moloch-worship and similar idolatries as are found in Lev. xviii. 21, and Deut. xviii. 10. The charge in the prophecy of Amos is a general one referring to the frequent lapses of the people into image-worship down to his own time.--G.B.S.
[394] hoste en to orei he hupographe gegone. In the following sentences, there are numerous variations in Edd. from the old text, but they do not materially affect the sense, and certainly do not improve it.
[395] The expression here used--he skene tou marturiou is the constant but inexact lxx. translation of 'hl mvd "tent of meeting"--i.e. the tent where God met the people. From a misunderstanding of the etymology of mvd (it being taken from vd to witness, instead of from yd to assemble) it was translated by marturion--a rendering which has occasioned frequent misunderstanding. Marturion is rightly used in the lxx. to render dvt (from vd) in Exod. xxv. 22; Num. ix. 15.--G.B.S.
[396] E. F. D. Edd. add, "that they knew (Him) not, and that they murdered (Him):" but the meaning is, that they betrayed, and that they murdered: or, as below, Their fathers slew the Prophets, and they, Him Whom they preached.
[397] ton ekeina poiesanta, A. B. C. N. Cat. i.e. that Christ, Who, as the Angel, did those works, etc. The modern text tous ek. poiesantas: that those who did those wickednesses, etc.: and so OEc. seems to have taken it: "If ye killed them who preached Him to come, no wonder that ye kill Me," etc.--Below, for Hoi toinun antipoiountai tou nomou, kai elegon, A. B. N. (N. corrected houtoi nun) have Ou toinun k. t. l. and A. legontes: "Therefore they claim not the Law (on their side), saying," etc.
[398] 'Angelon (53) cannot refer (as Chrys.) to the Jehovah-angel of the bush. It refers to angels as the mediators in the giving of the law, an idea which appears in the lxx., the N.T. elsewhere (Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2) and is prominent in later Jewish theology (Cf. Josephus, Ant. XV. v. 3) Vid. note *, p. 107.--G.B.S.
[399] Ou gar dunatai homou kai kata tauton (kat' auton A. C. and N. originally) kai katorthoma einai kai elattoma. E parresia, katorthoma; ho thumos, elattoma.
[400] Edd. from E. Sainei ho diabolos pollakis hos ho kuon, alla gnoto pas hoti. "The devil fawns full oft as the dog, but let every man know that," etc. A. B. C. N. hos ho kuon eideto (ideto Ch.) hoti. We restore the true reading by omitting hos. "The dog" is anger: the devil sainei, not as the dog, but upon the dog, as the allotrios in the preceding sentence. "Let our faithful watch-dog see at once that he is an intruder." In the following sentence the image is so far incongruous, as sainomen here has a different reference: viz. "as the dog fawns upon the friend though beaten, so let us," etc.
[401] an de autous kai trephe ho allotrios kai houto blaptousin (A. blapsousin). The antithesis seems to require the sense to be, "While, if the stranger even feed them, for all that, they do him a mischief." But the words trephe and blaptousin are scarcely suitable in the sense, trophen dido and lumainontai. Edd. have from E. alone, pos ou mallon blapsousin; in the sense, "If however the stranger (not merely caresses but) also (regularly) feeds them, how shall they not do more hurt (than good)?" i.e. "If the devil be suffered to pamper our anger, that which should have been our safeguard will prove a bane to us."--Perhaps this is the sense intended in the old reading; but if so, kai houto is unsuitable.