Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: The Best Form of Defense is Prosecution.

In Acts 7, Stephen delivers what is (arguably) the Bible’s longest sermon.

Controversially, however, he makes a number of historical blunders,

and leans heavily on the LXX.

Or at least so it’s often claimed.

Other interpretations, however, are possible.

Below, I’ll consider a few of them.

Stephen opens his ‘defense’—or, for English speakers, ‘defence’—with an account of Abraham’s departure from Ur.

An average reader of Genesis 11–12 could easily think God appeared to Abraham while he was in Harran, after Terah (his father) died.

Why? Because, in Gen. 11.26, Terah is said to be 70 when he fathers Abraham, Nahor, and Haran.

And, in Gen. 11.31–32, Terah and Abraham are said to set out from Ur and settle in Haran,

where Terah is said to die at the age of 205 (11.31–32),

at which point the text of Gen. 12 recounts God’s appearance to Abraham.

*Stephen*, however, says God appeared to Abraham while he was still in *Ur* (Mesopotamia: 7.2),

and he says Abraham left Haran only *after* Terah died,

despite the fact Abraham is only said to have been 75 when he left Haran (Gen. 12.4).

Has Stephen got confused?

If the text of Gen. 12.1 follows the text of Gen. 11.32, then shouldn’t the *events* of Gen. 12.1 be taken to follow those of Gen. 11.32?

And, if Abraham left Haran at the age of 75 (and was born when Terah was 70), then wouldn’t Terah have still been alive at the time?

Maybe, then, Stephen just blundered under pressure. Who could blame him?

Other explanations, however, are possible.

For instance, maybe Stephen wasn’t an average reader of Genesis.

Maybe Stephen realised God told Abraham to leave his *homeland* (rather than Haran) in Gen. 12.1,

in which case God must have appeared to Abraham in Ur.

And maybe Stephen realised Genesis 1–12 consists of multiple ‘panels’,

each of which begins just before its predecessor ends,

...in which case the events of Gen. 12.1 would be expected to (chronologically) *precede* those of Gen. 11.32.

And maybe Stephen realised it’s not Terah who ‘takes’ Abraham to Canaan in 12.5, but Abraham who ‘takes’ Sarah and Lot (contra 11.31),

and hence understood the text of Gen. 12.5 to presuppose the death of Terah.

And maybe Stephen realised sons can be listed in order of importance rather than age.

...in which case Abraham may have been born a long time after Haran (i.e., after Terah was 130 years old),

and Haran’s daughter may have been the same age as Nahor (whom she marries: Gen. 11.29).

In other words, maybe Stephen wasn’t such a careless exegete after all.

Indeed, his exegesis of the OT is intimately bound up with one of his main points.

In his sermon, Stephen mentions a number of ‘couplets’ of important individuals—a point we’ll take up later.

The first couplet is Abraham and Joseph.

What do these men have in common?

The answer—given Stephen’s exegesis—is as follows.

Both men were spoken to by God while in their homeland (cp. Joseph’s dream),

and both men were afterwards removed from their homeland.

Moreover, while, in secondary terms, both men were removed by human agents—Abraham by Terah (7.4) and Joseph by his brothers (Gen. 37)—,

ultimately, both men were removed by *God* (Gen. 50.20),

...as Stephen explicitly points out. (‘After Terah died, God removed Abraham from Haran...’: 7.4 w. Gen. 15.7.)

These are not unimportant details; rather, they are central to one of the points of Stephen’s sermon.

Why? Because the same thing is about to happen again.

Via the agency of Saul, God is about to remove his people from their homeland once again,

and the knowledge of God will thereby be taken to a new land,

as is explained in the very next chapter (Acts 8).

————————

Let’s, therefore, consider a second unusual detail in Stephen’s sermon.

In 7.14, Stephen says Joseph summoned Jacob and all his kindred,

which, he claims, amounts of a total of ‘75 people’.

Has Stephen got confused again?

Gen. 46.27 says *70* of Jacob’s descendants entered Egypt.

Why, then, does Stephen mention a total of 75?

Has he made a blunder?

Or has he followed Greek translations of Gen. 46.27 (which credit Joseph with an extra nine sons)?

Possibly.

As before, however, other explanations are possible.

Maybe, for instance, Stephen did his own sums.

Gen. 46 refers to 70 descendants of Jacob (who enter into Egypt with Joseph as their forerunner),

which it breaks down into the 33 descendants of Leah (46.8–15) (exclusive of Er and Onan, who are slain),

the 16 descendants of Zilpah (46.16–18),

the 14 descendants of Rachel (46.19–22) (inclusive of Ephraim and Manasseh, who are born in Egypt),

and the 7 descendants of Bilhah (46.23–25).

Most likely, then, since the 70 individuals mentioned in the MT are said to come forth from Jacob’s loins (Gen. 46.26), they don’t include Jacob or his four ‘wives’,

while Stephen’s count of Jacob’s ‘kindred’ (συγγένεια) do include these five (additional) individuals.

Equally important for us to note is the purpose of Stephen’s mention of the number 75 in the context of his sermon.

Stephen organises his references to OT characters in couplets,

which he defines on the basis of what he does and doesn’t tell us about them:

🔹 Stephen *doesn’t* mention Abraham’s age—namely 75—when he leaves Ur,

yet he *does* mention the count of people (*75*) who end up in Egypt,

which serves to couple together Abraham and Joseph and hence to highlight certain commonalities between them (discussed above).

🔹 Stephen *doesn’t* mention the two children born to Joseph in exile (Ephraim and Manasseh) in 7.9–16, yet he *does* mention the two children born to Moses in exile (cp. Exod 2.21–22 w. 4.20, 18.2–4),

which serves to highlight certain commonalities between Moses and Joseph.

In particular, it highlights their fruitfulness while in exile,

which is (again) very relevant to Acts 8.

When Jesus’ followers are scattered/exiled in 8.1ff., the word of God will not be sidelined, but will bear fruit in foreign lands.

🔹 Stephen *doesn’t* mention Moses’s act of disobedience, yet he *does* mention the Israelites’ act of disobedience (with the golden calf: 7.40–41),

and Stephen *doesn’t* refer to the Israelites as ‘stiff-necked’ in light of their idolatry (which Exod. 32–33 and Neh. 9 repeatedly do), yet he *does* refer to his audience as stiff-necked (7.51),

...which serves to associate his audience with a rebellious generation, much to their displeasure (7.54!).

————————

We thus come to our final unusual detail (for now), namely Stephen’s reference to Shechem in 7.15–16.

Stephen suggests the bones of Joseph (at least) were carried back from Egypt and buried in a plot of land which Abraham bought from the sons of Hamor,

yet Gen. 33 says it was *Jacob* who bought it.

Why the difference? More confusion on Stephen’s behalf?

I don’t think so.

Rather, I think Stephen wants to frame the burial of Joseph back in Canaan as the fulfilment of God’s promise.

God promised he’d give Abraham (and his seed) a possession in Canaan (7.5),

and God promised, although Abraham’s descendants would sojourn in a foreign land, he’d bring them back to Canaan (7.6–7).

And Stephen wants us to see Joseph’s burial in Shechem as the fulfilment of God’s promise.

Just as Levi paid tithes in the loins of Abraham, so Abraham bought land with the money of his seed/descendants (cp. Heb. 7.10).

And, consequently, when Joseph and his brothers returned from Egypt and were buried in Abraham’s burial ground, God’s promise was fulfilled.

Of course, a casual observer might dismiss such an interpretation as ad hoc.

But, by happy coincidence, we can point to a similar phenomenon nearby.

In Matt. 27, we’re told about a different plot of land which is bought with a dead man’s money, namely Judas’s ‘field of blood’.

Judas’s burial ground is bought by a third party, yet is seen as *Judas’s* possession (1.18–19) and hence as the fulfilment of God’s promise (Matt. 27.9–10 w. Jer. 32),

just as it is in Abraham’s case.

And, curiously, the *ultimate* price of each promise’s fulfilment is blood—in Judas’s case, his own, yet, in Abraham’s, the blood of Another (Gal. 3.5–14).

FINAL REFLECTIONS

In his twelve rules for life, @jordanbpeterson exhorts us to assume our interlocutors are aware of things which we’re *not* aware of.

The same principle can fruitfully be applied to Biblical exegesis.

When we consider the NT authors’ treatment of the OT, we will do well to assume the NT authors are aware of things which we’re *not* aware of.

Stephen’s treatment of the OT is careful, deliberate, and quite brilliant,

which I suspect he got from Jesus’ example.

Indeed, Stephen is a remarkable individual.

He lived like Jesus lived (Acts 6a).

He was treated like Jesus was treated (cp. Acts 6b’s false witnesses, etc.).

He preached as Jesus preached (Acts 7a).

And he died as Jesus died (Acts 7b).

That’s not a bad thing to strive to have written on your gravestone, right?

THE END.