Nearing the conclusion of Stephen’s speech, he finally turns to the accusation against him that he has spoken out against the temple. He does not answer the charges. He does not answer the charges. Instead, he makes a theological argument that God never needed the Tabernacle or Temple because heaven is his throne, and the earth is his footstool (Acts 7:49).
The Tabernacle and the temple were important elements of Israel’s worship (in the wilderness and the kingdom). Stephen does not deny that building a temple is wrong; it is not a sin; it was what God had commanded Moses to do in the first place. It was a sign of God’s favor on David that David’s son Solomon was allowed to build the Temple. Central to the hopes of the Davidic dynasty was the Temple. Just as in the first century, Jews looked to the Temple as a representation of their religious life and their hopes for a revived kingdom. David wanted to build a tent, and Solomon built the Lord a house (1 Chron 17:1-14; 2 Sam 7:2-16; 1 Kings 5:1-6:38; 2 Chron 1:14-5:1).
Sylva suggests four clear allusions to 1 Kings 8:14-30, Solomon’s speech at the temple’s dedication. These four points generally make the same theological points as Acts 7:44-50 (Sylva, 262).
- David’s intent to find a skēnōma for God (7:46)
- Solomon’s building God a temple (7:47)
- The assertion that God does not dwell (katoikeō) in cheiropoiētois (7:48)
- An assertion of God’s relation to the heavens, the earth, and an oikos (7:49, 50).
Stephen quotes Isaiah 66:1-2 to show that his critique of the temple and the leadership’s confidence in the temple is part of the long tradition of the prophets. In Isaiah, the writer emphasizes transcendence: God cannot dwell with men; he is so great that the heavens are his throne, and the earth is merely his footstool. “It is my contention that the transcendence thesis offers the best explanation of Acts 7:46–50” (Sylva, 262).
Israel struggled with the idea that God was so far above them, even though he had also promised to be with them. In the early stories, God led the people; his presence is seen in the cloud and fire in the wilderness, and when the temple is built, that glory dwells in the temple itself! But the image of a cloud for God’s glory indicates that it is not the real glory of God.
The Temple is only a shadow, a misty representation of the reality of God’s glory, which could never dwell in a temple made by human hands. Sylvia argues, “Acts 7:46-50 is not a rejection or criticism of the temple, but rather it is an assertion of God’s transcendence of the temple” (Sylva, 267). This is not much different from what Jesus said. In Mark 14:58, Jesus claimed to replace the temple with one not made by hand.
It is entirely possible that if the Sanhedrin had discussed the theology of God’s presence, many would have agreed with Stephen’s Speechephen at this point in his speech—but he takes it a bit further by comparing the present generation to those who did not understand God’s presence in the Hebrew Bible.
Bibliography: Sylva, Dennis D. “The Meaning and Function of Acts 7:46–50.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 261-73; Steve Walton, “A Tale of Two Perspectives?,” in Heaven on Earth, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004), 135- (in logos)
Acts was written after the Temple was destroyed, and when the movement had decisively pivoted to gentiles who did not need to join the nation and submit to its laws to follow its messiah. Both of these are reflected in this speech attributed to Stephen. Acts starts in Jerusalem and ends in Rome. A good deal of it is about why this Jewish sect was to be a Roman religion. The author had unusually good insight on what the future held.