Curators of a Museum and a Temple Not Made With Hands (Acts 7)

Introduction

This week we’re picking up in chapter 7 of Acts, and like I said in our last time our goal is to tackle the entire chapter at once, not in an effort to pick up the pace, but so that we can more effectively feel the impact of Stephen’s defense. I feared that if we attempted to break his speech up into several parts that we’d risk missing the forest for the trees, that we might miss the impact his defense would have had upon those who were listening.

Now, if you recall, at the end of chapter 6, Luke set the stage for Stephen’s defense in chapter 7. Luke wrote that Stephen, “full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.” And as you can imagine, that got the people’s attention. And in this instance, it garnered the attention of certain Hellenist Jews who “belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen.” Luke writes that they “rose up and disputed with Stephen,” but that “they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.” In other words, not only was Stephen performing great signs and wonders among the people, but he was also bearing witness to Jesus and teaching in his name, which had lead to a dispute with certain Hellenist Jews from the synagogue of the Freedmen. And furthermore, we’re told that they could not withstand Stephen’s arguments.

So, not only was Stephen performing many signs and wonders, but they could not withstand his teaching. And rather than being persuaded by his arguments and the miracles that accompanied them they dug their heels in, we’re told that they “secretly instigated men who said, ‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.’ And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes.” In other words, these men were stubborn or stiff-necked, to borrow a phrase often used in the OT to describe those Israelites who notoriously resisted God and his prophets, and a phrase that Stephen employs at the end of his speech.

And Luke says that their efforts eventually landed Stephen before the Jewish council. He says that “they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council”. And more than that, Luke says that “they setup false witnesses who said, ‘This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”

Enemies of the Temple and Moses?

Now, if you’re not familiar with Jesus’ teaching concerning the temple and the law of Moses, you might find yourself sympathetic to their concerns. You might say to yourself, “Maybe Stephen and the Apostles were the bad actors here?”, “What if the Jews had a legitimate concern?”, “Maybe Stephen and the Apostles were a legitimate threat to the temple and the customs delivered to them by Moses.” Well, to those not acquainted with Jesus’ teachings or Stephen’s arguments it certainly could have appeared that way. It would not have been difficult to convince you of this if your analysis of the situation were only an inch deep. You’d say to yourself, if Stephen is telling everyone that Jesus of Nazareth is going to destroy the temple and change the customs of Moses, then, yeah, we better stop him! He’s obviously an enemy of God!

You see, if your analysis of any particular situation is only as deep as the headlines you read, then you will be duped, because the people who write those headlines always have an agenda, they have a bias, they have underlying motivations and assumptions, and they’ll be inclined to spin a story and deliberately leave out certain facts in order to paint the picture they want you to see. Which is precisely what these men were doing. On the surface, they appeared to be defenders of the faith, and guardians of the temple and of the customs that Moses delivered to them, but the truth is they were not, in fact, as we’ll see they were enemies of the faith, which, in part, Stephen’s defense is aimed to prove.

Jesus the fulfillment of the Temple and Moses

Now, we’ll look more closely at what Stephen says in chapter 7 here in a minute, but first I want you to consider the situation, to consider this situation in light of redemptive history and in light of what Jesus had already taught. For example, it’s true that Jesus had taught his disciples that the temple would be destroyed in their generation, however, this wasn’t because he was an enemy of God, but because Israel had become apostate. While they appeared faithful, when Jesus came preaching repentance and the kingdom of heaven, accompanied by signs and wonders, they rejected him and had him executed on similar false allegations.

It’s also true that Jesus confronted the Pharisees and Sadducees concerning their teaching of the law and the customs delivered to them by Moses, but not because Jesus was an enemy of the law or those customs, but because the religious leaders had added to them, and lead the people astray into hypocrisy. This is why, for instance, Jesus, in his sermon on the mount, repeatedly said, “You have heard that it was said, but I say to you...”, because they had perverted the law, or “for it is written,” because they had frequently added to it.

Furthermore, and more importantly, Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of these things, for example, Jesus made it abundantly clear that he had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. That Jesus was not an enemy of Moses, but the very prophet of whom Moses said God would raise up after him. At another time, when speaking to the Pharisees, he told them, “something greater than the temple is here.” In other words, Jesus did not stand in opposition to the temple, he was its ultimate fulfillment, rendering it a mere type and shadow of himself and his ministry. You see, Jesus was the end for which these very things were given. That the temple and the customs delivered by Moses were meant to serve him and his ministry, not the other way around. Whereas, the religious leaders had come to treat these things as ends unto themselves. But under the old covenant, it’s temple and it laws were not ends unto themselves, but they served a temporary purpose until Christ came.

You see, this wasn’t a message that opposed the temple and the customs delivered to them by Moses, but a message that proclaimed their fulfillment through Jesus of Nazareth. This is why, for instance, the prophets, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, had spoken of a new and better covenant that would be established in the future, implying that the old covenant would be superceded by a new covenant. This is also why after Solomon had built the temple in Jerusalem that he said, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!” (1 Kings 8:27) In other words, Solomon recognized that this temple could not contain God, nor was it ever intended to, but that it served a certain temporary purpose under the old covenant.

It’s very important to understand that Israel’s sacrificial system was not an end unto itself, it could not atone for Israel’s sins, nor was it intended to, it was intended to instruct Israel, their system of worship was intended to teach them that God was holy and that they were not, that they needed to be cleansed in order to draw near to God, that they needed to be separate from the world, that they needed their sins forgiven, and that only the right kind of sacrifice could atone for their sin.

In short, the customs of Moses where meant ultimately to be instructive and to prepare them for the Christ, who would be a once for all sacrifice on behalf of the people, a high priest, not according to the frail and mortal line of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchizedek, a priest without beginning or end, who would forever live to make intercession on behalf of his people. Not a priest who had to atone for his own sin, but a pure and spotless lamb. And not just any man but the eternal Son of God, the Word made flesh, who could, in himself, bear the iniquity of us all.

Strawman

You see, this is what the dispute with Stephen was about, but how do they frame Stephen’s position while he was standing before the council? “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.” Now, that’s clearly a dishonest way to represent Stephen’s position isn’t it? Obviously, if Stephen’s claim is simply to tear down the temple and scrap the customs given to them by Moses for no good reason, then everyone would agree that Stephen is an enemy of God, but that wasn’t his argument was it?

In fact, had that been his argument I suspect there wouldn’t have been any real dispute in the first place. No one would have bothered to listen to him. The fact that they “could not withstand the wisdom and Spirit with which he was speaking” demonstrates that his teaching was far more profound and compelling than how these men portrayed it. If Stephen’s argument was truly that simplistic and offensive then the Sanhedrin wouldn’t have had to drum up false witnesses to combat his teaching. Instead, they had to twist his words, because Stephen’s teaching threatened their system in such a way that they were unable to refute it.

The guise of defending Moses and the temple

You see, the religious leaders were rejecting God’s redemptive plan under the guise of “defending” Moses and the temple. Sadly, their zeal for the temple and the law was not a zeal for God, though, they wanted the people to believe that it was. In other words, their zeal for old covenant customs was not rooted in a zeal for God, otherwise they would have been willing to relinquish those traditions at the behest of God’s prophets, otherwise they would have listened to Jesus and his disciples, otherwise they would have listened to Stephen.

And this danger is always present within the church, even today our zeal for biblical traditions can become empty or hollow, falsely giving others the impression that we have a zeal for God when we don’t. And I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have a zeal for biblical traditions (we should), but that our zeal for biblical traditions should be grounded in a zeal for God, and held onto loosely.

Curators of a museum

Instead these men had become like the curators of a museum, curators of a museum for men they claimed to revere and for customs they claimed to understand. They were like the curators of a museum who meticulously preserved, admired, and honored the priceless artifacts of the past. They polished and proudly displayed the artifacts of their faith—the stories of Abraham, their deliverance through Moses, the words of the prophets. They claimed to revere these heroes, honoring their tombs, decorating their monuments, and insisting, 'If we had lived in those days, we would never have persecuted them!' (cf. Matthew 23:29–30).

However, while they paid homage to their history, and claimed to revere the patriarchs and the prophets, the truth was, had they been alive in those days they would have been among those who persecuted and killed the prophets, they would have been among those in the wilderness who were stiff-necked and who resisted the Holy Spirit. They exercised an outward reverence for the past yet they were resisting God’s work in the present.

In fact, in Jesus’ seven woes to the scribes and Pharisees, he said,

English Standard Version Chapter 23

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

This was the situation that Stephen was in, as he sat before the council, he was one of those men whom Jesus had promised to send to the scribes and Pharisees, and of whom they would put to death. This would be Stephen’s opportunity to bear witness to Jesus of Nazareth before the council, just as the apostles had in chapters 4 and 5, but this time it would result in his death. So, after Stephen had been accused of speaking against the temple and the customs of Moses, we read there in Acts 7, verse 1, “And the high priest said, ‘Are these things so?’”

Recounting Israel’s history

Now, Stephen’s defense is a recounting of Israel’s history, from Abraham to Solomon. In verses 2-8 he recounts the events leading up to Israel’s captivity in Egypt, from Abraham’s calling in Mesopotamia to Jacob’s 12 sons. In verses 9-16 he recounts Joseph’s time in Egypt, how his brothers were jealous of him and sold him into slavery; how Joseph was made ruler over Egypt and saved his family from a famine by bringing them into the land of Egypt. Then he spends a majority of his time recounting the story of Moses, from verses 17-44, describing how Moses was kept from harm, raised in Pharoah’s court, until he fled to Midian where he became the father of two sons, then after 40 years the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a burning bush, commissioning him to return to Egypt and deliver his people from bondage; Moses leads them out of captivity and into the wilderness, until verse 45 when Stephen wraps up his story by recounting the lives of Joshua, David, Solomon and the temple through verse 50.

The presence of God is not localized

Now, at first, Stephen’s point is not immediately clear, but as he recounts the events from Abraham to Solomon a couple of patterns emerge. The first pattern that emerges is his insistence that the presence of God is not restricted to any single place, that the Most High cannot be contained. Now, on one hand you might think, isn’t if obvious that the presence of God cannot be contained, because isn’t God omnipresent, and you’d be right, but you have to understand that Stephen is intending to expose Israel’s idolatry, or as Calvin put it, their propensity to treat the temple as a talisman or magical container for God. Just as the Israelites had done during the time of the judges when they would take the ark of the covenant into battle like a good luck charm against the Philistines.

Therefore, Stephen points out, at least five times, throughout Israel’s history when the presence of God was not localized in Jerusalem within the temple. Notice what he says there in verse 2, “Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.” Where was God when he called Abraham? He appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia.

Now look at verse 4, “Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living.” Notice how Stephen points out that God was with Abraham in Mesopotamia, in Haran, and in the land of Canaan. God is with Abraham wherever he goes.

Then look at verses 9-10 which refer to Joseph, “And the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him.” God was with Joseph, but not just with him, but with him in Egypt. Apparently, God’s presence can even follow you into a pagan nation. And it’s at this point I think the pattern starts to become clear.

Now look down at verse 30 when Stephen recounts Moses’ time in the wilderness after he flees Egypt, “Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush.” Where does God appear to Moses? He appears to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai (a desert outside of Canaan), and what does the Lord say to Moses there in verse 33? “Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” Notice how the ground at the burning bush was holy ground, not because this was somehow an inherently holy place, but because God was there.

Now look down at verse 44, “Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers.” In other words, do you remember that before the temple even existed that it was merely a tent in the wilderness? That it was by design a portable tabernacle that led the people through the wilderness for forty years? In fact, it a remained a tent of meeting even while Joshua dispossessed the nations from the land of Canaan.

And more than that, look what it says there at the end of verse 45, “So it was until the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him.” In other words, the thought of building a temple in Jerusalem didn’t get off the ground until David’s time, and even then the temple wasn’t built until Solomon’s reign. And if that’s not enough, look at verse 48, “Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says, ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?’”

What’s Stephen’s point? His point is to demonstrate that God's presence has never been confined to the physical temple in Jerusalem, even Solomon knew this when he built it, saying in 2 Chronicles 6:18, “But will God indeed dwell with man on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, how much less this house that I have built!” You see, they had come to believe that the temple was a permanent fixture of redemptive history, therefore when Jesus showed up and said that something greater than the temple had come they lost their minds.

So, we must first understand that no particular place is inherently holy, but that a place is sanctified by who’s there. For example, the underground tombs (called catacombs) where the early Christian’s often met to worship in secret to escape persecution were holy because the Christians were present there, and because they were indwelt by the Spirit of God.

Idolatry and superstition

Now, I think many Christians recognize this instinctively, yet what do we still have a tendency to do? We have a tendency to regard certain places or objects as inherently holy. This is especially prevalent within Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism where they’ve developed certain practices that treat certain places and objects as holy or sacred, often involving veneration, pilgrimages, or ritual use.

Now, Protestants are not immune from this temptation, we too are tempted to treat certain objects or places as holy. Many Protestants treat their paper bound Bibles as if it were a holy object, making sure to place it on a high shelf, never letting it touch the floor, or feeling uneasy if someone were to write in it. I find this particularly comical now since the invention of software Bibles that run on your phone, because what are you going to do now, keep your phone the shelf? In fact, it might shock you to know that for years now we’ve been using a small, tattered children’s Bible as a doorstop to our bedroom.

I also remember when we realized that it was probably a second commandment violation to have an image of Jesus in our nativity scene, and how everyone winced when we destroyed it with a hammer, which I think proves my point, that when we attempt to localize the presence of God to certain places or objects we inevitably engage in idolatry, and we become very superstitious, treating those places and objects as if they were a talisman or a good luck charm, but we must remember that this is paganism.

In short, this is what the temple in Jerusalem had become to the Jews, it had become an object of idolatry, therefore anything that jeopardized its existence and the customs associated with it would be met with fierce resistance. It didn’t matter if Stephen’s teaching was indisputable or that he was accompanied by signs and wonders, he was perceived as a threat to what they held most valuable. Which is such a good lesson for us. And it’s why you should ask yourself regularly, what it is you hold most dear? What are you not willing to give up to follow Christ?

The new covenant temple

So, the first pattern that emerges from Stephen’s speech is his insistence that the presence of God is not restricted to any single place, that the God cannot be contained. Which is also important because it’s central to the disciple’s claim that Jesus is the true temple, because if you recall back in Acts 2, I pointed out that the church, under the new covenant, constitutes a new temple, therefore the purpose and function of the temple under the old covenant had come to an end. The presence of God that had previously filled the Temple under the old covenant now inhabits his people, which is why we’re described as living stones by the Apostle Peter, and Jesus as the chief corner stone by the Apostle Paul. All of whom are joined together, built up into a holy temple not made with hands, built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. This is also why Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well that “the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.” (John 4:19-24) That their worship will no longer be confined to the temple in Jerusalem.

Continuity of rebellion and persecution

Now, the second pattern that emerges, which I’ve already pointed out in part, is that Stephen sees a continuity of rejection, rebellion, and persecution throughout Israel’s history. In other words, in his recounting of Israel’s history, Stephen highlights at least six times when the Israelites opposed those whom God had sent to deliver them. And of course Stephen’s point is to draw a correlation between those instances and his accusers.

For example, in verse 9, we read that “… the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt;” In other words, as early as Joseph we see his brothers selling him into slavery, rejecting the one God had raised up to deliver them from famine and to preserve their family.

Then down in verses 25-29, after Moses had defended one of his brothers from an Egyptian he was rejected by them, and forced to become an exile in the land of Midian. Later, in verse 35, when he had returned after 40 years in Midian, and after his encounter at the burning bush the Israelites rejected him as their deliverer. Then later, in verse 39, after Moses had delivered them from the hands of the Egyptians, they refused to obey him in the wilderness, and thrust him aside, turning their hearts back again to Egypt.

Then finally in verse 51 Stephen just lets them have it, he says to them,

English Standard Version Chapter 7

51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. 52

So, while they’ve accused Stephen of speaking against the temple and the customs of Moses, the truth is they’re the ones who stand opposed to God, they’re the ones who are resisting the Holy Spirt, not Stephen.

English Standard Version Chapter 7

54 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. 55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. 58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Now, I don’t know if you remember what Jesus’ final words to the council were or not, but when the high priest in Matthew 26:63 looked at Jesus and said,

English Standard Version Chapter 26

63 ... “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “

And what does Stephen tell the council that he sees as he gazes into heaven? The Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. And it was at that point they rushed together at him, casting him out of the city and stoning him.

Prayer