And he thought that his brethren understood that God by his hand would save them. But they understood it not.
ενομιζεν δε συνιεναι τους αδελφους αυτου οτι ο θεος δια χειρος αυτου διδωσιν αυτοις σωτηριαν οι δε ου συνηκαν
6 Church Fathers comment on this verse
Notice that Stephen has not yet become unbearable to his listeners. Even when he says this, they continue to listen to him. So powerfully did the grace on his face hold them. "He supposed," he says, "that his brethren would understand." Although the defense was offered in deed and no reasoning was needed here, they still did not understand. Do you see how meekly he speaks? After showing Moses' anger toward one man, he also expresses his meekness toward another.
What Moses did was an unresolved riddle. It was a sign that through Moses God was going to destroy the Egyptians and save the Israelites. Moses thought that his brethren understood that through him God was giving them deliverance. Yet the divine protection was visible from the deeds themselves. What further understanding was needed? Nevertheless, even with this, they did not understand.
The one whose religion is opposed to the teaching of the Hebrews enters the struggle and seeks to prove stronger than the Israelite. He appeared so to many superficial people, who abandoned the faith of the fathers, went over to the enemy's side, and became traitors to the ancestral teaching. But whoever is truly great and noble in soul, like Moses, will himself inflict the deathblow on the one who rises against piety. Yet such opposition may also be found within ourselves. Man stands between the contending sides like a prize for victory. Whichever side he joins, that side he makes victorious. Idolatry contends with piety, as the Egyptian with the Hebrew.
Licentiousness contends with chastity, righteousness with injustice, arrogance with modesty, and, in general, everything considered contrary with its opposite. By his own example Moses teaches us to stand on the side of virtue, as on the side of a fellow countryman. He teaches us to destroy the adversary who rises against it. For the victory of virtue becomes the ruin and disappearance of idolatry. In the same way, injustice is destroyed by righteousness, and arrogance is slain by modesty. But there is also in us a struggle between those of the same race. We would not have dogmas invented by evil heresies if a structure of erroneous reasonings did not contend against sounder reasonings. If we are weak and unable to strengthen the right side, because evil has prevailed by its devices and the authority of truth has been overthrown, then we must flee away as quickly as possible. The example of Moses proposes this flight toward the better and higher teaching concerning the mysteries. And if it is again necessary to dwell with a foreigner, that is, if we are compelled to turn to pagan philosophy, we may do this only after driving away the evil shepherds. They unlawfully use the well. That is, we must first expose false teachers in their evil use of external learning. Thus we shall live by ourselves, not getting involved in the quarrel and not acting as mediators in it. We shall dwell among those of one mind, whose will agrees with ours, together with our own flock. And all the movements of our soul will follow the guiding Word, like sheep following a shepherd.
Then, in order to defend himself against the charge of insulting Moses and his law, Stephen dwells at length on this great Old Testament figure (vv. 20-43). He strives to show all his reverence both for Moses and for the law given through him. In God's special providence over the salvation and destiny of Moses, his particular calling is already revealed (vv. 20-22). Stephen shows that Moses, even while at Pharaoh's court, already foresaw his vocation. No doubt, he did so by reflecting on the extraordinary circumstances of his life. This vocation was to be the deliverer of his people from the Egyptian yoke (v. 25). Then the person of Moses is fully assessed in his dignity and significance. This begins with the depiction of his calling by God to the work of delivering Israel (vv. 30-35).
It continues with the deliverance itself and his leading of Israel into the promised land, with many signs and wonders (v. 36). To express the dignity of Moses still more, Stephen points to him as a type of the Messiah, as one who conversed with angels, and as mediator between God and Israel (vv. 37-38). By this alone Stephen's reverence for the law of Moses is fully expressed. Yet it is expressed still more in his calling this law "living words" (v. 38). At the same time, this speech is also a rebuke. In reading it, one cannot fail to notice that Stephen strives, wherever possible, to contrast the benefactions of the saving God with the ingratitude and unbelief of the Israelites. Thus, already in the life of the patriarchs, he points to Joseph's suffering from the envy of his brothers, the forefathers of the Israelite people (v. 9). In Egypt, the descendants of these sons of Jacob reject the saving hand of Moses (vv. 25-28, 35). In the wilderness they reject Moses and God (vv. 39-43).
"He supposed they would understand," and so forth. This is Stephen's own remark about the meaning and significance of Moses' striking down of the Egyptian. In the Pentateuch's account of this, there is no indication of it, nor even a hint. Stephen presents this fact as a foreshadowing of the deliverance of the whole Hebrew people from Egyptian bondage, which God would accomplish through Moses. The people ought to have understood this fact in that way, but they did not understand it (cf. Theophylact). Stephen seems to attribute this failure to understand not to the people's inability to comprehend it, but rather to their lack of faith in God, that He would save, and to their lack of hope for liberation.
The killing committed by Moses was, in the words of Blessed Theophylact, "an unsolved riddle." He himself attempted to explain it by calling it "a sign that God, through Moses. Was about to destroy the Egyptians and save the Israelites." He adds that "God's protection was visible from the deeds themselves." And yet the Hebrews did not perceive this visible protection. Undoubtedly, "Moses killed the Egyptian not from anger and not from frenzy, but from zeal for God." Yet it is hardly certain that this zeal was rational and pleasing to God. Earlier Archdeacon Stephen noted that Moses appeared by the prompting of his own heart alone. And now he acted according to the same heartfelt impulse, hoping that the people would understand that God was giving salvation by his hand.
But it was almost impossible to understand the salvation of a people through the killing of one evil man among millions. Therefore one may suppose that in Moses there appeared a good desire that had not been fully considered. Later, when he was more mature in years, he refused this great work, even when receiving an explicit command from God for it. The spirit of zeal appeared unbalanced in him later as well, for example when he struck the rock twice to bring forth water. For this he was not counted worthy to enter the promised land. The Apostle Paul, speaking in the Epistle to the Hebrews about many deeds of Moses, is silent about his killing of the Egyptian. But Archdeacon Stephen found it necessary to speak of this and even to build on it a particular thought about Moses' rejection and his later exaltation. In any case, the members of the Sanhedrin could not see here the blasphemy against Moses of which they accused St. Stephen. From their point of view, this killing of the Egyptian could call forth nothing but approval of Moses.
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 19 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS