Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 7:44
Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
44. Our fathers had the tabernacle of Witness [of the testimony ] in the wilderness ] The name is found first Exo 38:21. The ark is also called the ark of the testimony, as Exo 25:22, &c., and the name was no doubt given because all the contents of the ark, which was the most sacred part of the Tabernacle fittings, were testimonies to God’s rule or to His power exerted for His people. Aaron’s rod, the pot of manna, and the tables of the Law were all stored up therein. And this ark above which God made His presence seen was in the wilderness and moving from place to place.
as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, &c.] Better, even as he had appointed who spake, &c. For the command see Exo 25:9; Exo 25:40; Exo 26:30; Exo 27:8.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The tabernacle of witness – The tent or tabernacle which Moses was commanded to make. It was called a tabernacle of witness, or of testimony, because it was the visible witness or proof of Gods presence with them; the evidence that he to whom it was devoted was their protector and guide. The name is given either to the tent, to the two tables of stone, or to the ark; all of which were witnesses, or evidences of Gods relation to them as their Lawgiver and guide, Exo 16:34; Exo 25:16, Exo 25:21; Exo 27:21; Exo 30:6, Exo 30:36; Exo 31:18, etc.; Num 1:50, Num 1:53. The two charges against Stephen were, that he had spoken blasphemy against Moses or his Law, and against the temple, Act 6:13-14. In the previous part of this defense he had shown his respect for Moses and his Law. He now proceeds to show that he did not design to speak with disrespect of the temple, or the holy places of their worship. He therefore expresses his belief in the divine appointment of both the tabernacle Act 7:44-46 and of the temple Act 7:47.
According to the fashion … – According to the pattern that was shown to him, by which it was to be made, Exo 25:9, Exo 25:40; Exo 26:30. As God showed him a pattern, it proved that the tabernacle had his sanction. Against that Stephen did not intend to speak.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 44. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness] That is, the tabernacle in which the two tables of stone written by the finger of God were laid up, as a testimony that he had delivered these laws to the people, and that they had promised to obey them. As one great design of St. Stephen was to show the Jews that they placed too much dependence on outward privileges, and had not used the law, the tabernacle, the temple, nor the temple service, for the purpose of their institution, he labours to bring them to a due sense of this, that conviction might lead to repentance and conversion. And he farther shows that God did not confine his worship to one place, or form. He was worshipped without any shrine in the times of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, c. He was worshipped with a tabernacle, or portable temple, in the wilderness. He was worshipped also in the fixed temple projected by David, but built by Solomon. He asserts farther that his infinite majesty cannot be confined to temples, made by human hands and where there is neither tabernacle nor temple, (in any part of his vast dominions,) he may be worshipped acceptably by the upright in heart. Thus he proves that neither tabernacle nor temple are essentially requisite for the true worship of the true God. Concerning the tabernacle to which St. Stephen here refers, the reader is requested to consult the notes, See Clarke on Ex 25:8, c., and the subsequent chapters.
Speaking unto Moses] , Who spake, as in the margin signifying the angel of God who spake to Moses, or God himself. See Ex 25:40.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The tabernacle of witness; called also the tabernacle of the congregation, Exo 33:7, because about it on all solemn occasions the people assembled. Here it is called the tabernacle of witness, because God here testified or witnessed his glorious presence; and especially because in it the ark of the covenant, the law, and the testimony were kept.
According to the fashion that he had seen, Exo 25:40; Heb 8:5. Moses was charged not to vary from the prescript; God being jealous of his own appointments. Now this is the rather spoken of by St. Stephen, that he might prove that the place where God was worshipped in had varied, and therefore night also now be changed.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
44. Our fathers had the tabernacleof witness in the wildernesswhich aggravated the guilt of thatidolatry in which they indulged, with the tokens of the divinepresence constantly in the midst of them.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness,…. The Ethiopic version adds, “of Sinai”; there it was that the tabernacle was first ordered to be built, and there it was built, and set up; which was a sort of a portable temple, in which Jehovah took up his residence, and which was carried from place to place: of it, and its several parts and furniture, there is a large account in Ex 25:1. It is sometimes called Ohel Moed, or “the tabernacle of the congregation”, because there the people of Israel gathered together, and God met with them; and sometimes “the tabernacle of the testimony”, or “witness”, as here; Ex 38:21 Nu 1:50 because the law, called the tables of the testimony, and the testimony, it being a testification or declaration of the will of God, was put into an ark; which for that reason is called the ark of the testimony; and which ark was placed in the tabernacle; and hence that took the same name too. The Jewish writers say k, it is so called,
“because it was a testimony that the Shekinah dwelt in Israel”;
or as another l expresses it,
“it was a testimony to Israel that God had pardoned them concerning the affair of the calf, for, lo, his Shekinah dwelt among them.”
This tabernacle, in which was the testimony of the will of God, what he would have done, and how he would be worshipped, and which was a token of his presence, was among the Jewish fathers whilst they were in the wilderness; and is mentioned as an aggravation of their sin, that they should now, or afterwards, take up and carry the tabernacle of Moloch. The Alexandrian copy reads, “your fathers”; the sense is the same.
As he had appointed; that is, as God appointed, ordered, and commanded:
speaking unto Moses, Ex 25:40
that he should make it according to the fashion he had seen; when in the Mount with God; Heb 8:5 for it was not a bare account of the tabernacle, and its vessels, which he hearing, might form an idea of in his mind; but there was a visible form represented to his eye, a pattern, exemplar, or archetype of the whole, according to which everything was to be made; which teaches us, that everything in matters of worship ought to be according to the rule which God has given, from which we should never swerve in the least.
k Baal Hatturim in Exod. xxxiii. 21. l Jarchi in ib.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The tabernacle of the testimony ( ). Probably suggested by the mention of “the tabernacle of Moloch” (verse 43). See on Mt 17:4 for discussion of (from , shadow, root , to cover). This first sanctuary was not the temple, but the tent in the wilderness. “Stephen passes on from the conduct of the Israelites to his other argument that God is not necessarily worshipped in a particular spot” (Page).
According to the figure ( ). According to the type or pattern. is from , to strike, to smite, and is the print of the blow (Joh 20:25), then the figure formed by a blow or impression like our type, a model or example. Quoted from Ex 25:40. Common word in the old Greek.
That he had seen ( ). Past perfect active of , to see (double reduplication).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness,” (he skenetou marturiou entoispatrasin hemon) “Our fathers had, held, or possessed the tent of witness,” a tent built by Divine blueprints, set apart, sanctified for religious purposes for the Hebrew worship, Exo 25:9; Exo 25:40; Heb 8:5.
2) “In the wilderness,” (en to ereno) “While in the desert,” the wilderness of Sinai, Exo 25:9; Exo 26:30.
3) “As he had appointed, speaking unto Moses,” (kathos dietaksato ho lalon to Mouses) “Just as he commanded, while repeatedly speaking to Moses.” Exo 25:18; Exo 25:40; Exo 13:21-22; Exo 40:34.
4) “That he should make it,” (poiesai auten) “That he should make, form, or structure it,” as a witness or testimony, Num 9:15; Because it was to be accompanied, lighted the way for Israel’s journeying and resting by day and by night for forty years, Neh 9:12; Neh 9:19.
5) “According to the fashion that he had seen,” (kata ton tupon honheorakei) According to the type, model, or figure which he had beheld,” as Divinely shown to him in the wilderness, Heb 8:5; Exo 25:9; Num 8:4.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
44. The tabernacle of witness. Stephen showeth here that the blame cannot be laid upon God, because the Jews polluted themselves with divers superstitions, as if God had suffered them to wander freely. (457) For he saith that God had commanded how he would be worshipped by them. Whereupon it followeth that they were entangled in so many errors, because they would not follow that form which God had appointed. Although he girdeth [reprehendeth] them for two causes: Because, being not content with that rule alone which God had prescribed, they invented to themselves strange worships; secondly, because they had no respect unto the right end of the temple, and of the ceremonies which God had appointed. For whereas they ought to have been unto them exercises of the spiritual worship, they apprehended nothing but that which was carnal, according to their carnal nature; (458) that is, they took the shadow for the body.
Therefore we see that the Jews were first reprehended for their boldness, for because that being not content with the plain word of God, they were carried away after their own inventions. Secondly, they are reproved for the preposterous abuse of the true and sincere worship; because they followed the flesh instead of the Spirit. They had, saith he, the tabernacle of witness. Therefore it was their own wantonness and rashness only which caused them to sin. For seeing they were well taught what was the right way and order of worshipping God, all cloak and color of ignorance was taken away.
Which thing is worth the noting. For seeing God doth after a sort bridle us, when he maketh his will known unto us, if after we have received his commandment we turn aside, either unto the right hand or to the left, we be twice guilty; because the servant which knoweth his master’s will, and doth it not, shall suffer more stripes: This is the first mark whereby the Holy Spirit doth distinguish all bastardly and corrupt worshippings from the true and sincere worship. Yea, (to speak more briefly,) the first difference between true worship and idolatry is this: when the godly take in hand nothing but that which is agreeable to the Word of God, but the other think all that lawful which pleaseth themselves, and so they count their own will a law; whereas God alloweth nothing but that which he himself hath appointed. To this end serveth the word witness.
The Hebrew word [ מד ] ( moed) signifieth, indeed, an appointed place and time, or an assembly of men; but the reason expressed in Moses showeth that there is another cause why it is so named. For in Moses this is oftentimes repeated, “I will meet with you there.” Therefore the tabernacle was consecrated by the covenant and the word of the Lord, and his voice was heard there continually, that it might be distinguished from all profane places.
According to the form which he had seen. This is referred unto the second point which I have touched; for it may be that he which shall use the ceremonies only which God appointed, shall notwithstanding worship God amiss. For God careth not for external rites, save only inasmuch as they are of the heavenly truth; therefore God would have the tabernacle to be made like unto the heavenly figure, (459) that the Jews might know that they were not to stay still in the external figures. Furthermore, let him which is disposed read my Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and he shall see what that figure, whereof mention is made Exo 25:0, (Exo 25:40; Heb 8:5,) did signify. Stephen doth only briefly tell them in this place that the worship which God commanded the Jews is spiritual, and that they, according to their carnal blockishness, were evil and false interpreters; therefore, as we have said, that God alloweth no worship but that which is grounded in his commandment, so we are taught here that it is requisite in the right use of the commandment, that the spiritual truth be present; which thing being granted, it was the like question which we said did consist principally in this issue, whether the shadows ought to yield to the body or not. Whereas Moses is said to have seen a form or figure, the Spirit of God signifieth thereby that it is unlawful for us to invent forms at our pleasure; but that all our senses must be set upon that form which God showeth, that all our religion may be formed according to it. The word figure signifieth here, in this place, the principal pattern, (460) which is nothing else but the spiritual truth.
(457) “ Sine freno,” without a curb.
(458) “ Pro crasso suo ingenio nihil nisi terrenum et carnale apprehenderent,” in accordance with their gross disposition, they apprehend nothing but what was earthly and carnal.
(459) “ Archetypum,” archetype, model.
(460) “ Primarium exemplar,” the primary pattern, the original model.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(44) The tabernacle of witness.The word was applied by the LXX. to the Tabernacle, as in Num. 9:15; Num. 17:7, as containing the Two Tables of Stone, which were emphatically the testimony of what was Gods will as the rule of mans conduct (Exo. 25:16; Exo. 25:21; Exo. 31:18). It should be noted that the LXX. gives the same rendering for the words which the English version translates as the tabernacle of the congregation, e.g., in Exo. 29:10; Exo. 33:7; Num. 16:18-19.
As he had appointed, speaking unto Moses.The answer to the charge lay in these words. Stephen admitted and asserted the divine sanction that had been given to Tabernacle and Temple. What he denied was that that sanction involved perpetuity. It is not without interest to note in the thought thus implied the germ of Hookers great argument in the Third Book of his Ecclesiastical Polity (c. 11).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
IV. The Transition from the old Tabernacle to the Temple under Solomon, Act 7:44-50.
As Stephen was accused of blaspheming the temple, so he now shows both that the building of the temple was a great change from the old order of things, and that Solomon, the very builder of the temple, denied that any locality could circumscribe or fix the Deity itself. To maintain, therefore, that the divine worship is to spread itself away from one spot is no blasphemy, but Strictly accordant with Scripture and the Divine nature.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
44. Tabernacle of witness The tabernacle built by Moses and carried through the wilderness lasted probably until the time of David. It was a movable structure, after whose model the temple was built. (See note on Mat 21:12.) In the Hebrew language the word signifying to meet or to congregate or constitute, and the word signifying to testify, closely resemble each other, and so this tabernacle was called both the tabernacle of the congregation and (by the Septuagint translators) the tabernacle of testimony or witness. It was called the former because the congregations of Israel gathered to it; it was called the latter because it contained the covenant by which God testified himself as the God of Israel.
As he had appointed, speaking unto Moses More clearly, As he who spoke unto Moses had appointed.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Our fathers had the tabernacle of the testimony in the wilderness, even as he appointed who spoke to Moses, that he should make it according to the figure that he had seen.’
Their fathers had ‘the Tabernacle of the Testimony in the wilderness’, which was made according to God’s pattern, just as the One Who spoke to Moses had appointed him. So the Tabernacle, which contained the covenant came from the wilderness, from the very mountain of God . It was portable, as befitted a universal God, and was according to God’s pattern and received in the wilderness at the mountain of God under God’s instructions. All was therefore of God, and nothing was of the land.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
What Israel’s Attitude Towards God’s Dwellingplace Had Been (7:44-50).
What Stephen said here would mainly have been acceptable to many Hellenistic Jews, certainly in Alexandria where they were used to allegorisation. But it was not going to be acceptable in the home of the Temple.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Reply to the Charge of Speaking Against the Law and the Temple (7:44-53).
Having been accused of speaking against the Law Stephen defends himself by speaking in favour of the oracles of God and pointing out how they and their fathers had not been obedient to them.
This may be analysed as follows:
Israel received the God-designed Tabernacle which came from God but did not keep it (Act 7:44-46).
Israel rejected the God-appointed Tabernacle and chose the man devised Temple (Act 7:48-50).
Israel chose to resist the Holy Spirit and rejected God’s appointed messengers, even finally rejecting the Righteous One Himself (Act 7:51-52).
Israel received the God-designed Law, but did not keep it (Act 7:53).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Tabernacle and the Temple:
v. 44. Our fathers had the Tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as He had appointed, speaking unto Moses that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
v. 45. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
v. 46. who found favor before God, and desired to and a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.
v. 47. But Solomon built Him an house.
v. 48. Howbeit, the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands, as saith the prophet,
v. 49. Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool; what house will ye build Me? saith the Lord; or what is the place of My rest?
v. 50. Hath not My hand made all these things?
Stephen takes up the recital of the various houses of worship among the Jews with a purpose, since he wants to show that the dependence upon the forms of external worship are vain without true faith of the heart. That advantage the children of Israel in the wilderness had: they had the Tabernacle of the witness, where God Himself appeared and witnessed unto Himself. They had made it just as God, in His long conversation with Moses, Exo 25:40, had shown and commanded him. Moses had seen the pattern and plan of the entire tent and of all its appointments, and so it was made. And this same Tabernacle, the charge of which had been given to the people by Moses, they brought along with them as they entered into the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, when they occupied the former possession of the Gentiles. For the latter the Lord gradually drove out, expelled, before the children of Israel during a number of centuries, at the time of the judges and of Saul, until the time of David, the beloved of the Lord. At his time the conquest of the country was practically completed, the nations that had not been destroyed having been brought into subjection. David then, since he had found favor with God and was regarded very highly before Him, not only earnestly desired, but even asked to find, to build a lasting tabernacle to the Lord; and if the Temple had actually been of the value placed upon it by the later Jews, it might have been expected that God would have given His consent. But the Temple was not built by David, but by Solomon, 2Ch 6:7-9, But Stephen wants his hearers to remember that the presence of the highest God is not confined to any building, even though it were of the size and beauty of Solomon’s Temple. The builder of the first Temple had himself confessed as much, 1Ki 8:27; 2Ch 6:18. And the Prophet Isaiah had written in the same strain, ( Isa 66:1 -. Heaven is to Me a throne and the earth a stool for My feet; what manner of house will ye build to Me, saith the Lord, or what place for My resting? Has not My hand made all this? The absolute foolishness of the Jews in pinning their faith to the Temple which had taken the place of Solomon’s, and upon the city in which it had been placed, could not have been brought out with greater force than in these words. The entire worship of the Jews had degenerated to become a mere observance of forms and customs, without life and true power. And Stephen had sketched the situation with a few strong, but fitting words, in order to present it to the eyes of his judges as it actually existed.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Act 7:44. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness As St. Stephen had been accused of blaspheming the temple, he now proceeds to speak with peculiar propriety, and with due reverence, of their sacred places, as raised by special direction from God; and yet corrects that extravagant regardfor them, and confidence in them, which the Jews were so ready to entertain.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 7:44 . .] not a contrast to Act 7:43 , for the bringing out of the culpability (“hic ostendit Steph., non posse ascribi culpam Deo,” Calvin, comp. Olshausen and de Wette) which there is nothing to indicate; but after the giving of the law (Act 7:38 ) and after the described backsliding and its punishment (Act 7:39-43 ), Stephen now commences the new section of his historical development, that of the tabernacle and of the temple, as he necessarily required this for the subsequent disclosure of the guilt of his opponents precisely in respect to this important point of charge.
The Hebrew means tent of meeting (of God with His people), i.e. tent of revelation (not tent of the congregation, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 167), but is in the LXX., which the Greek form of this speech follows, incorrectly rendered by (the tent in which God bears witness of Himself), as if derived from , a witness. For the description of this tabernacle, see Exodus 25-27 :
.] see Exo 25:9 ; Exo 25:40 . Comp. Heb 8:5 , and thereon Lnemann and Delitzsch, p. 337 f.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
III. The third part of the discourse, embracing the period extending from the post-Mosaic age, to that of Stephen
Act 7:44-53
Our fathers had33 the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking34 [who spake] unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion [pattern]that he had seen. 45Which also our fathers that came after35 [fathers, baring received it] brought in with Jesus into the possession [with Joshua, when they took possession] of the Gentiles, whom God drave [thrust] out before the face of our fathers,unto the days of David;46Who found favour before God, and desired to [asked that hemight] find a tabernacle [dwelling-place] for the God36 of Jacob. 47But Solomon builthim a house. 48Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples37 [in that which is]made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what [kind of, ] house will ye build [for] me? saith the Lord: or what [which] is the place of my rest? 50Hath not my hand made all these things?51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart38 and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52Which [one] of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of [who foretold] the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have39 been [become] now the betrayers andmurderers: 52[Ye] Who have received the law by the disposition [law as regulations] of angels, and have not kept it.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Act 7:44. a. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness.The original term, , [e. g. Num 16:18-19], is translated by the Septuagint, and here also, . As the precise meaning of is not by any means positively established, the assertion (de Wette, Meyer) that the derivation of the word [by the Sept.] from ,, is erroneous, possesses no decisive authority. It is still a matter of doubt whether the term should be taken in the sense of tent of assembly, or tent of revelation (witness, testimony). [According to the current interpretation, the word is derived from the root , and the term is regarded as equivalent to tabernacle of the congregation, or tent of assembly. Robinson: Lex. Old Test.].A is mentioned both in the foregoing, and in the present verse; in the former, it is that of an idol, in the present, that of the true God. Such appears to be the relation of the two verses to each other, although it is not the speakers intention to give special prominence to the contrast presented by an idolatrous worship, on the one hand, and a worship acceptable to God, oh the other. It is rather the sanctuary itself, to which he refers in this portion of the discourse, Act 7:44-50. The sanctuary was, at first, the sacred tabernacle, in the wilderness, and; subsequently, in Canaan; from the time of Solomon, it was the temple, the holy house, ver 47.
b. As he had appointed who spake [marg.] unto Moses.The sanctity of the tabernacle is here demonstrated by the fact that God gave explicit directions to Moses respecting the manner in which it should be made, namely, after the pattern which was shewed to Moses on Mount Sinai, Exo 25:9; Exo 25:40. Thus, the sacred tabernacle, together with its instruments, was made with hands, or, was a human work, it is true; but at the same time, it was a sanctuary prepared by Gods express command, and made in accordance with a divine ideal and primordial type. On this point Philo (Life of Moses, III. Op. ed. Mangey, II. 146) expresses himself as follows: As to the construction Moses had been thus instructed: , , . [The following translation is given in the edition of 1613, Lib. III. Acts 515: Placuit igitur tabernaculum erigi, cujus apparatum ex oraculis in monte Moses didicerat, futuri dificii contemplatus ideas incorporeas, ad quarum exemplar intelligibile oportebat designari sensibiles imagines.Tr.]
Act 7:45. Which also our fathers, having received it [marginal rendering], brought in, etc.The sacred tent continued to be the sanctuary, not merely in the wilderness, but also in the land of Canaan, until the age of David and Solomon. The words , refer, as the connection shows, to another generation of the fathers, namely, the contemporaries of Joshua, who came with him into the country and occupied it. [Jesus, here, as in Heb 4:8, is the Septuagint form of Joshua, and retained in the Engl. version.Tr.]. Still, the words do not so belong to . , as if they were intended to define the age of the latter with precision, as, in that case they would necessarily be preceded by the article [i.e. ]; they belong, strictly speaking, to the verb . is not equivalent to successores, neither is it substituted for the adverb afterwards [postea, deinceps (Wolf.)], but conveys the thought that this generation had obtained possession of the tabernacle, as a sacred and precious inheritance received from the fathers. The words ., in so far lack precision as they term, when literally understood, the act of taking possession of the territory which belonged to the conquered and expelled nations [], the act of taking possession of the nations themselves. The specification of the time: , does not belong to, , as Kuinoel and Baumgarten assert, but to . According to the former construction, the sense would be, that the work of expelling the Canaanitish nations had continued until the days of David: But the expulsion of those nations is treated as a subordinate point in the present passage, which refers mainly to the sanctuary and its history. If the words are, on the other hand, connected with , they imply that the tabernacle had been brought with Joshua into the country, and had continued to be the sole sanctuary of Israel from that period to the age of David.
Act 7:46-47. Whodesired of Jacob.It is an arbitrary procedure, as far as the principles of lexicography are concerned, and also unnecessary, to assert (Kuinoel) that is to be taken in the sense of desiderabat [instead of the more accurate version: asked for himself (J. A. Alex.; Hack.).Tr.]. For, even if a petition of such a nature, addressed by David in prayer to God, is not found in the sacred narrative, analogous sentiments do occur in Psalms 132 (or Psalms 131, according to the Septuagint). The first five verses doubtless occurred to the mind of Stephen at the moment, e. g. Act 7:5 : , . The word , as contradistinguished from , designates a fixed and permanent dwelling-place, and here refers, as the connection shows, to a dwelling-place that is worthy of the God of Jacob, i.e. to an appropriate sanctuary. This urgent petition of David, which, in Psalms 132 is expressed in the form of a vow, Was not granted by God to the king. [Comp. 2 Sam. Acts 7]. Stephen does not here distinctly state this fact, but assumes that it is well-known to his hearers. It is also worthy of observation that the thought or wish respecting the building of a temple, and the subsequent completion of the building, are alike represented, in Act 7:46 and Act 7:47, as a thought of man and a work of man, and that neither was the result of a divine appointment and command, or of divine directions concerning the details, as in the case of the tabernacle, Act 7:44.
Act 7:48-50. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not, etc.The train of thought is the following:Although Solomon was successful in substituting for the portable tent a well-built house, a magnificent temple, as the sanctuary, still the temple can never be regarded as the truly appropriate and exclusive dwelling-place of God, to which his presence and the manifestation of himself are restricted. The particle of negation after , is placed emphatically at the head of the sentence, as a protest against the delusive and superstitious opinions of the Jews respecting the dignity of the temple. The terms and present a contrast. The former, corresponding to the conception expressed by , sets forth the infinite glory and grandeur of God; the latter (which the Septuagint has even employed in the place of the word sanctuary, i.e. that of Moab, in Isa 16:12, and elsewhere applies to idols), is purposely used here without the word . It thus contrasts the general conception of a human work with that of the Creator himself, and classes the Jewish delusion respecting the temple with the superstition that is connected with idols. The prophetic words to which Stephen appeals, Isa 66:1-2, are quoted by him from the Septuagint with unimportant verbal variations. They express the following thought:The whole creation, vast as it is, is the dwelling-place of God, and therefore no house built by men can be his exclusive abode, or contain him. As He is himself the Creator of all things, he cannot need the aid of man in preparing the place of his rest. When Stephen repeats this prophetic passage, he indirectly furnishes a divine declaration which sanctions any change of the temple-worship that might be effected through Jesus and the Gospel. He contends against the delusion that the temple was, in an absolute sense, the necessary and only place in which God could be acceptably worshipped. [Comp. also Solomons words, 1Ki 8:27; 2Ch 6:1-2; 2Ch 6:18, and Pauls, Act 17:24.]. But he does not, as Baur and Zeller conjecture, intend to speak disparagingly of the temple itself, or of the worship offered in it. Not a trace of such a purpose can be found in his words, neither does the tenor or general plan of his discourse authorize the supposition that he was influenced by such a motive.
Act 7:51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised, etc.The speaker very suddenly changed the tone in which he had hitherto addressed his hearers. He had sketched the ancient history of the people, but now speaks of his contemporaries. He had spoken of earlier manifestations and interpositions of God, but now directs attention to the Person of Christ. He had referred to former generations of Israel, but now dwells with a searching glance on his own times. He had hitherto spoken in an unimpassioned style, but now addresses his hearers with irrepressible indignation and a flaming zeal. His historical statements had mainly served as means, for vindicating himself, in view of the charges advanced by his enemies, and had only indirectly referred to the errors of his contemporaries. But his language now assumes an aggressive character, and, with all the fervor of a prophet, he accuses his hearers of grievous sins which they had committed. The transition is sudden, but by no means unnatural, for even while the speaker repeated the history of former generations, his glance was fixed on his own age. There is, consequently, no reason for imagining that any external cause, any interruption on the part of the audience, such as angry outcries or threatening gestures, induced Stephen to adopt this severe style of address (Kuinoel; Olshausen).The humiliating accusation is frequently repeated in the Old Testament, that the Israelites were stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears [e. g., Exo 32:9; Exo 33:3; Lev 26:41; Deu 10:16; Eze 44:7, that is, rebellious, like a stubborn ox. (J. A. Alex.).Circumcision, viewed as a purificatory rite (Sept. =, Deu 30:6), and as a consecration, is figuratively ascribed to the heart and the ear. (de Wette). The sense is: They are men whose mind and understanding are as rude as those of pagans. (Meyer).Tr.].It is here Stephens main purpose to rebuke the deep-rooted unwillingness of the Jews to be governed by the Spirit of God, and to submit to his will. Hence he produces the positive charge (which is designedly expressed with great emphasis in the phrase: .. .) that they violently resisted the guidance of the Spirit of God. The reproach is, at the same time, so expressed, as to apply to the entire people of Israel, in all their successive generations: , and, .
Act 7:52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?The proof of the charge: . . . . , is given. Their fathers persecuted and slew the prophets who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, yea, persecuted them all without exception ( .). Their ancestors had persecuted and slain those men who foretold that the Messiah would come, , He who would be the only and the perfectly Righteous One, and who would justify many. Isa 53:11. All that the fathers had done to the prophetsStephen continuesthe men of this generation have done to Him who was promised by the prophets. Of Him ye have become the betrayers and murderers.They became (corresponding to ), by accusing Him, and delivering Him into the power of Pilateand (corresponding to ) by crucifying Him.
Act 7:53. [Ye] who have received the law, , i.e., that it might be revered and obeyed, as consisting of regulations made by angels (legem eo habendam loco, quo habend essent constitutiones angelorum; Bengel). Meyers objection to this interpretation (namely, that it cannot be correct, since Israel received the law as containing commandments, not of angels, but of God) confounds Stephens words with those that are employed in Exod. Acts 2. [Act 7:1; Act 7:19; Act 7:22, where the angels are not mentioned]. The interpretation: legem ab angelis promulgatam, arbitrarily disowns the proper signification of , and confounds it with [See Winer: Gram. N. T., 32. 4, ult.; 49. a. ult.; 50. 4. b.Tr.]. It is certainly true that the original Hebrew does not speak of the coperation of the angels at the giving of the law; but their presence and operations on that occasion are mentioned in rabbinic traditions, of which a trace may already be discovered in the Septuagint, Deu 33:2 [the words: from his right hand went a fiery law for them, being there rendered: .In Jos. Ant. xv. 5. 3, Herod says: We have learned ourdoctrines andlaws from God . The key to the right rendering seems to be the similar expression in Gal 3:19announced by angels; .., at the injunction of angels. (Alford). Robinson, in Lex. ad verb. translates: according to (by) the arrangements of angels. See also Heb 2:2.Tr.].The relative always generalizes, by extending that which applies to one subject to many others of the same kind, or by evolving a general conception from a particular subject. Thus, in the case before us, the present generation of the people of God is combined by Stephen with all that preceded it, and all are placed in the same category by himall are found to be alike disobedient to the law which they had received from God. This prominent feature in the character of the nation, is both the original cause, and also furnishes an explanation, of the conduct observed by the Israelites towards Jesus and his followers.
General Remarks [referred to in Exeg. note on Act 7:2-3. a.Tr.].a. The main design of the discourse.Interpreters have, at all times, differed widely in their statements of the general tenor of this discourse, as well as of its relation to the offences with which Stephen was charged, and to the course of history in general. Erasmus has, no doubt, expressed the real sentiments of many interpreters, when he says: Multa inesse, qu non ita multum pertinere videantur ad id, quod instituit. But Bengel is fully justified when he replies: Quamquam non ponit enuntiationes enuntiationibus adversariorum directe contradicentes, tamen ad omnia nervose respondet. There is, at all events, no reason to suppose, as Kuinoel does, that Stephen had not yet reached his main argument when he was interrupted by the tumultuous cries of his hearers, and that he was hastily executed before he had completed his discourse. Dr. Baur suggested subsequently (De orat. hab. a Steph. cons., 1829) that the following was the theme of the discourse:The more gloriously God manifested his grace to Israel, even from the beginning, the more perverse and ungrateful was the conduct of the people. This proposition is strictly true, but it applies only to the Mosaic age, Act 7:17 ff.; whereas not one word occurs in the part which refers to the patriarchial period, Act 7:2-16, with the sole exception of Act 7:9, which could suggest such a thought. Hence Luger (Zweck, etc., d. Rede. d. Steph., 1838), and Baumgarten (I. 131 ff.; 142), have endeavored to find the leading thought of the discourse elsewhere. The former supposes it to be the subordination of the law to the promise; the latter finds it in the progressive character of divine revelation under the old covenant. However, Stephen does not assign such a prominent position to either of these thoughts, as to authorize us to suppose that he had chosen it as the theme of his discourse. But there is a view presented by him which reveals his main design in speaking. In striking contrast with the dark shadow of mans unbelief and disobedience to the Spirit of God, and to the men whom he sent,a deep shadow that falls on Israel,Stephen presents to our view the brightness of the of God, Act 7:2. He dwells on the unlimited glory and the absolute independence of God, by virtue of which he revealed himself from the beginning, at any time or place, in any form or order, according to his own pleasure, not being restricted either to the temple as the exclusive place of his presence, or to the land of Canaan, as the only region suited for his revelations. It surely cannot be regarded as a merely accidental circumstance, that Mesopotamia (Act 7:2), Egypt (Act 7:9-10; Act 7:22; Act 7:34; Act 7:36), the desert of Arabia (Act 7:30 ff., Act 7:36; Act 7:38), together with the promised land itself (ver 4 ff., 45), are mentioned as the regions in which God had spoken with the fathers, and revealed himself in his miracles. It is, accordingly, the main design of Stephens discourse to combine both a vindication of himself, and also a sharp rebuke of his hearers with explanatory statements of the history of the people of Israel. The past is the mirror in which he views the present; it exhibits distinctly as well the glory and absolute sovereignty and liberty of God in revealing himself, as also the insensibility and perverseness of Israel, both in earlier ages and also at the present time. The latter thought is expressed at the close, Act 7:51 ff., in the form of a direct and emphatic reproach.
b. The historical genuineness of the discourse. It is only very recently that the entire discourse has been represented as supposititious, and written, irrespectively of historical facts, at a later period, (Baur, Zeller, and B. Bauer). The argument which has been adduced in support of this opinion, (namely, that the skill with which the materials are selected and arranged, betrays that it is an elaborate production of the pen), is by no means adapted to sustain it. The peculiar character of the discourse, on the contrary, (which has given rise to a very great diversity of opinions respecting its leading theme and real purpose,) is precisely an argument in favor of its genuineness. For, if it were spurious, and had been composed with only a general reference to the circumstances, it would, without doubt, have replied with far more fulness and directness to the charges brought against Stephen, than it does in its present form. It has also been represented as altogether inconceivable that such a discourse should have been preserved, and handed down to a succeeding age with entire accuracy and precision. To this objection it may be replied: (1) Such a discourse could be the more easily retained in the memory, precisely on account of the historical matter which it presents, and the chronological order which it observes.(2) No circumstance could have operated more powerfully than the martyrdom of Stephen, which immediately followed the delivery of the discourse, in inducing the Christians of his day to remember his last words with deep feeling, to repeat them with devout and grateful sentiments, and, indeed, to commit them to writing at an early period, for the sake of preserving his dying testimony. It was in this spirit that, at a later period, the narratives concerning other martyrs were carefully written. It cannot be a source of embarrassment to us, that we do not know the name of the writer who first of all recorded the discourse. It is obvious that he was a Christian, and not an enemy; it is not, in itself, an improbable circumstance, that some Christians may have been present as hearers at the meeting of the Sanhedrin, when the discourse was delivered. Still, even if Saul was also present at the time, as we have every reason to believe, the conjecture that he, rather than any other person, should have committed the discourse to writing (Baumgarten, I. 129), is not supported by a single consideration that is of weight.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. If the image of God himself could become an idol [Act 7:41, note], the temple, the house of God, may also, by a gross perversion, become the medium through which man is conducted to superstitious and idolatrous practices. The tendency of fallen man to occupy himself with created objects, is here plainly seen. When he finds an object that reminds him of God, that guides him to God, and that aids him in his devotions, he is apt to regard it as possessing an independent existence of its own, as invested with a holy and sanctifying power, and as a pledge of communion with God, and of eternal life. He now reveres it above its just claims, and thus it ultimately takes precedence even of the living and personal God himself. At this point superstition and idolatry appear in a fully developed form. Such an object was the temple, when the Israelites placed all their trust and confidence in it, and exclaimed: The temple of the Lord is here [are these]. Jer 7:4. Such an object even the Church may become, that is, not merely the sacred edifice, but the Church of Christ itself, whenever ecclesiasticism is more highly exalted, even if unconsciously, than Christianity, and whenever the living Christ and a living communion with him are reduced to a subordinate rank. It is always appropriate, in such cases, to warn and admonish men, and to remind them in the most impressive manner, of their duty to worship God in spirit and in truth, to offer him the worship of the heart, and seek a living communion with him. It was in this manner that the ancient prophets bore witness, and rebuked the people; Stephen, who quotes the prophets, adopts the same course, in the present case. So, too, the Reformation was a return to the only acceptable mode of worshipping God, i.e., in spirit and in truth. And it is even now needful to repeat the warning, to guard men against superstitious practices and the deification of , and teach them to beware of the cry: Lo, here is Christ, or there. Mat 24:23.
2. The unity which is observable in the history of revelation, is admirably illustrated in the discourse of Stephen, with respect both to God and to man. God had formerly given promises; he now fulfils them. He had formerly sent his servants, the prophets, whose principal duty was no other than that of announcing the Messiah who was to come (Act 7:52, comp. with Act 7:37). The Just One, who was promised, has now come. But men resist the Spirit of God, and the counsel of his grace; the fathers persecuted, and even slew those men of God, the prophets; and, finally, their children and descendants betrayed and murdered that Just One. They received, but did not obey the law and the word of God ( ). To them the offer of grace in Jesus is made; but they reject alike that offer and the kingdom of God. If the fathers did not keep the law in its spirit, their descendants imitate their example with respect to the Gospel and the grace that came by Jesus Christ.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Act 7:44. According to the fashion that ha had seen.God has made religion on earth and mans worship of him, conformable to the religion of heaven, which is the true pattern; Mat 6:10, Thy will in heaven. (Quesn.)
Act 7:45. Whom God drave out.All uncleanness must be removed from the heart which is to become the abode of God, even as the Canaanites were expelled when Israel entered in; 2Ti 2:21. (Starke).Be of good cheer, ye evangelical heralds! Carry forth the witness of the word of Jesus into heathen lands with confidence. God will there drive out heathenism before your face, and raise up Christians! (id.).
Act 7:46-47. David desired Solomon built.David was a type of Christ, who, in his humiliation, prepared abundantly, by the store of his merits, for the building of his church; (1Ch 22:5.). Solomon was a type of Christ in his state of exaltation, building up his church with materials that were purchased with his blood; Eph 2:21. (Quesn.).The temple of Christ is built in the heart of him alone who loves peace [Solomon, i.e. pacific.]. (Starke).
Act 7:48. The Most High dwelleth not in temples.What materials does the Lord employ in building his church? I. Not gold and silver (earthly power and splendor); II. Not wood and stone (the religion of mere decorum, an external, mechanical service); III. Not paper and parchment (external creeds and modes of church government); but, IV. Hearts that are endowed with life (established on Christ in faith, united together in love, and ripening in hope for heaven.).Idolatry, not only without the pale of the church, but also in it, and by means of it. [See Doctr. No. 1, above.].The divine right, and the human imperfections of the visible church.The mode in which God builds his temple: I. In the church; II. In the hearts of men; III. In heaven.The manner in which the Holy Spirit builds the temple of God: I. In the church; II. In the closet; III., In the communion of saints; IV. At the consummation of the kingdom of God. (Kapff, at the Eccl. Convention, 1857).The true temple of God: I. The visible temple ought not to be undervalued, Act 7:46-47; II. The invisible temple ought not to be forgotten, Act 7:48-50.
Act 7:51. Ye uncircumcised in heart and ears.When the heart is uncircumcised, the ears are in the same condition. When our penitent hearers experience the power of the word of God in their hearts, they are willing to lend an ear to our words. But when they repel the word from their hearts, they also stop their ears, like the hearers of Stephen, Act 7:57. (Ap. Past.).
Act 7:52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?The striking uniformity observable in the kingdom of God [see Doctr. No. 2, above]: I. On the part of God (unchanging grace and truth); II. On the part of man (continued blindness and hardness of heart).We often extol the excellence and holiness of the founders of useful institutions, without, however, manifesting their spirit. (Quesn.).
Act 7:53. Who have received the law not kept it.The pagans, who have received the law taught by nature, are punished when they transgress it [Rom 1:20 ff; Rom 2:14-15]. Of how much sorer punishment are they worthy, who have received the law by the revelation of God, and, nevertheless, trample it under their feet! (Starke).
On the whole discourse of stephen.The holy men of God of former ages, exhibited to posterity: I. As heralds, who proclaim aloud the grace and truth of God; II. As preachers of repentance, who address a degenerate race.[Stephens discussions with the Jews (Act 6:9-10; Act 7:2-53): I. The causes which led to them: (a) His evangelical labors; (b) their ignorance and prejudices. II. The manner in which they were conducted: (a) On the part of Stephen; (b) on the part of the Jews. III. The virtual triumph of the truth: (a) Revealed in the wisdom and the spirit by which Stephen spake (Act 6:10); (b) and in the inability of the Jews to resist by argument (Act 6:10; Act 7:54; Act 7:57). IV. The results: (a) Revengeful feelings in the adversaries of the truth; (b) conviction produced in the minds of the candid. (The whole suggesting the following: (1) The repetition of such scenes in the subsequent history of religion; (2) the weapons which religion employs; (3) The guilt of those who reject religious truth; (4) The final decision of all disputes by the Judge of the living and the dead.Tr.]
Footnotes:
[33]Act 7:44. a. after in the textus receptus, is but feebly supported [by D. . Syr., etc.], and may unhesitatingly be regarded as spurious. [Omitted in A. B. C. Cod. Sin., and by Lach., Tisch. and Alf.Tr.]
[34]Act 7:44. b.[For speaking, (Tynd.; Cranm.; Geneva; Rheims), the margin proposes the preferable version: who spake.Tr.]
[35]Act 7:45.[; for that came after (Cranmer), the margin offers the version (Tynd.; Geneva; Rheims): having received (i. e., it). to receive through a series of persons, to receive by succession, to succeed to. Robinson: Lex. N. T.Alford translates: having inherited it, and regards that came after as ungrammatical; Hackett: having received; J. A. Alexander: receiving.Tr.]
[36]Act 7:46.The reading [of text. rec. after ] is genuine, according to the testimony of A. C. E., of all the ancient versions, and of the fathers; Lachmann, on the other hand, prefers , which is found, it is true, in B. D. H., but does not equally well suit the context. [ occurs also in Cod. Sin. (original); a later hand substituted .Tr.]
[37]Act 7:48.The textus receptus, following the authority of H, and several fathers, inserts after the word , which is wanting in all the other MSS. of the first rank [A. B. C. D. and also Cod. Sin. Syr. Vulg., etc.], and is evidently an explanatory addition of a copyist. Bengel had already assigned this character to it. [Rejected by the recent editors; a gloss from Act 17:24. (de Wette).Tr.]
[38]Act 7:51.The plural, , is attested by A. C. D., [and also Cod. Sin.] it is true, and adopted by Lachmann, whereas the singular, , occurs only in E. H.; but the latter is, on the other hand, sustained by the ancient oriental versions [but not the Vulg.: cordibus], and by the majority of the fathers. The plural seems to be an alteration to suit, partly which precedes, and partly the parallel term , which follows; the singular would scarcely have been substituted by later copyists for the plural, if the latter had been the original reading. [The sing. adopted by Tisch. and Alf.Tr.]
[39]Act 7:52. is, without doubt, the genuine reading [found in A. B. C. D. E., and adopted by Lach. Tisch., and Alf.], while [of text. rec.] is supported by only a few of the oldest MSS. [H., etc.Cod. Sin. exhibits .Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
Ver. 44. Our fathers had the tabernacle ] He had made answer to their first accusation touching blasphemous words against the law. Now for the tabernacle and temple, he takes off that too; and showeth that God’s worship is not now to be tied to any one place more than another.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
44. . . . ] In opposition to the . just mentioned: but also in pursuance of one of the great aims of the speech, to shew that holiness is not confined to locality or building . This part of his subject Stephen now enters on more particularly. The words . . . are the LXX rendering of ( Num 16:18-19 al.) ‘the tabernacle of the assembly’ (or ‘congregation,’ E. V.). They apparently derived the latter word from , ‘testatus est,’ instead of , ‘constituit.’
] (ref.): another contrast, cf. , Act 7:43 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 7:44 . Here again we notice that the first sanctuary of the fathers was not the temple, nor was it erected on holy ground, but according to God’s direct command. .: it is possible that there was in the speaker’s mind a contrast to the in Act 7:43 , but the connection is not clearly drawn out, , “ut in oratione concitatiore” (Blass). . , “the tabernacle of the testimony”. The same phrase in LXX is used (incorrectly as Meyer noted) to translate the Hebrew tabernacle of the congregation or tabernacle of meeting, i.e. , of God with His people, cf. Exo 27:21 . But the tabernacle was justly called , because it contained “the ark of the testimony,” LXX, Exo 25:9 (Exo 25:10 ), and so frequently in the rest of the book, and Exo 31:18 , . The tabernacle might properly be so called as a witness of God’s presence, and a testimony to the covenant between God and His people. See also Westcott on Heb 8:5 , additional note. , cf. Act 20:13 , Act 24:23 ; only in St. Luke and St. Paul in N.T., except once in Mat 11:1 ; in Gospel four times, in Acts four or five times, and frequent in LXX. Grimm compares disponere (verordnen). . : “even as he appointed who spake,” R.V.; “per reverentiam appellatio siletur” Blass; cf. Exo 25:40 , Heb 8:5 . , cf. Wis 9:8 , where the command is given to Solomon. : “according to the figure,” L.V., i.e. , pattern, likeness, cf. Act 7:43 and Rom 5:14 . Again we see how far Stephen was from denying the divine sanction given to Moses for the tabernacle. In the thought thus implied lies the germ of Hooker’s great argument, Eccles. Pol. , iii., 11 (Plumptre).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 7:44-50
44Our fathers had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as He who spoke to Moses directed him to make it according to the pattern which he had seen. 45And having received it in their turn, our fathers brought it in with Joshua upon dispossessing the nations whom God drove out before our fathers, until the time of David. 46David found favor in God’s sight, and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. 47But it was Solomon who built a house for Him. 48However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says: 49″Heaven is My throne, And earth is the footstool of My feet; What kind of house will you build for Me?” says the Lord, “Or what place is there for My repose? 50Was it not My hand which made all these things?”
Act 7:44 This account is found in Exodus, chapters 25-31; 36-40. These detailed plans of the tabernacle were revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The NT book of Hebrews talks about a heavenly tabernacle or sanctuary (cf. Act 8:5-6; Act 9:11; Act 9:23) of which the earthly one was a copy. As Stephen dealt previously in this chapter with the charge of chapter 6 that he was against Moses (cf. Act 6:11), now he begins to deal with the second charge that he was against the Temple (cf. Act 6:13).
“the pattern” See Special Topic at Act 7:43.
Act 7:45 This covers a period of time from the conquest (either 1400 or 1250 B.C.) to the time of David (+ 1011 B.C. to 971/70 B.C., Harrison; 973 B.C., Young; 961 B.C., Bright).
Act 7:46 This reflects 2 Samuel 7, which is such a significant passage. It is the divine establishment of the Davidic kingship.
Act 7:47 “Solomon who built a house for Him” This account is found in 1 Kings 6-8 and 2 Chronicles 1-6.
Act 7:48 This statement is similar to Solomon’s statement in 1Ki 8:27 and 2Ch 6:18.
Act 7:49-50 This quote is taken from the Septuagint of Isa 66:1-2. T he point is that even Solomon recognized that a building could not contain the God of creation!
Do these verses imply an argument for the inclusion of Gentiles? If so, it seems somewhat veiled. However, Solomon himself saw the temple as a place for the world to come to YHWH (cf. 1Ki 8:41-43). It was the Greek-speaking Jews (i.e., the seven in Acts 6) who saw and proclaimed the worldwide mission even before the Apostles recognized this aspect of Jesus’ teachings (cf. Mat 28:18-20; Act 1:8). Stephen may have been asserting this by implication in Act 7:50.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
witness = testimony. Greek. marturion, as in Act 4:33. See Exo 25:16; Exo 26:33; Exo 30:6 Rev 15:5.
had appointed = arranged.
according to. Greek. kata. App-104.
fashion Greek. tupos, as in Act 7:43.
seen. Greek. horao. App-133. Compare Exo 26:30; Exo 27:8. Heb 8:5.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
44. . . .] In opposition to the . just mentioned: but also in pursuance of one of the great aims of the speech, to shew that holiness is not confined to locality or building. This part of his subject Stephen now enters on more particularly. The words . . . are the LXX rendering of (Num 16:18-19 al.) the tabernacle of the assembly (or congregation, E. V.). They apparently derived the latter word from , testatus est, instead of , constituit.
] (ref.): another contrast, cf. , Act 7:43.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 7:44. , the tabernacle of witness) So the LXX. for the Hebrew , Exo 27:21, etc.- , according to the fashion) Heb 8:5, note. This type was better than those types (figures), of which Act 7:43 speaks.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
the tabernacle: Exo 38:21, Num 1:50-53, Num 9:15, Num 10:11, Num 17:7, Num 17:8, Num 18:2, Jos 18:1, 2Ch 24:6
speaking: or, who spake
that he: Exo 25:40, Exo 26:30, 1Ch 28:11, 1Ch 28:19, Heb 8:2, Heb 8:5
Reciprocal: Exo 25:16 – General Jos 3:14 – bearing the ark 2Sa 7:6 – tent 1Ch 17:5 – dwelt
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Stephen’s Last Words and Martyrdom
Act 7:44-60
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
Let us, by way of opening word, speak a few words on two great benefactions to Israel (see Act 7:44-50).
1. The fathers had the tabernacle of witness. There is a wealth of meaning in this striking naming of the Tabernacle. It is called a Tabernacle of Witness. What does all of this mean? God said to Israel, “Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He.” Again God said, “Ye are My witnesses, * * that I am God.”
In after years Christ said, to the Church, “Ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”
Now Israel and the Church both of whom are witnesses, have also had witnesses. You all say, yes, they have had witnesses many. True. Yet, among all witnesses, none is more comprehensive in the testimony borne than is the Tabernacle. Everything about the Tabernacle spoke of Christ. Seven times in the last chapter of Exodus we read how Moses wrought this and that in the construction of the Tabernacle, “as the Lord commanded Moses.”
In the eighth chapter of Hebrews we read how the earthly Tabernacle served as an example and shadow of Heavenly things; it was for this cause that “Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle: for, See, saith He, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.”
No marvel then, that the Tabernacle in the wilderness was called The Tabernacle of Witness, because it bore witness to Christ in His spotless life, vicarious death, and eternal High Priestly work; because also it bore witness to the Greater Tabernacle which is in Heaven; and because in all things it was a testimony of things that should be hereafter.
This Tabernacle so full of meaning in its construction, in its equipment, and in its typical sacrifices, and washings, and Table of Shewbread, Candlesticks and Ark of the Covenant, was God’s witness to Israel during her wilderness journeyings.
Stephen presses home the fact that this Tabernacle of Witness was with Israel-a Tabernacle that spoke in no uncertain terms of Christ and His fullness. Against this fullness of light; this unmistakable testimony, the fathers had sinned. Their sons in Stephen’s day, were none the better. Into the darkness and shadow of death where Israel sat, a great light shone. Jesus Christ came in fulfilment of many and definite prophecies. This the Jews knew. The virginity of His mother, the village of His birth, the slaughter of the innocents, the calling out of Egypt, His city of boyhood and youth, His forerunner, much of His ministry, the details of His death, His resurrection-all of these, and much beside, were written in the Prophets.
Stephen made it plain to the people that they were blinded. The Jews had abundant witness, as well as their fathers. The fathers had sinned in the light of the Tabernacle of Testimony, they had sinned in the greater light of the Christ Himself.
2. The fathers had the temple of Solomon. Stephen showed how the fathers had wearied of the personal touch with God which had been so graciously vouchsafed them. At first God had spoken to them face to face; then He had given them His leadership through Moses, and Joshua, and through subsequent judges. The fathers, however, had sought a king, and God had allowed them to select the man of their choice, Saul the son of Kish. Saul became a thorn in their flesh.
Afterwards God gave them David, His choice, and then Solomon. Solomon builded the Lord an House. However, God dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the Prophet: for, Heaven is His throne and earth His footstool. The sad story of Israel’s past sin, lay chiefly in their refusal to allow God to lead them. They walked in the ways of their flesh; fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
All of this Stephen set before the people. Do we wonder that hearts walking in pride and boasting; that souls filled with envy and deceit and with every evil working, would accept no such an array of indubitable facts that demonstrated so openly their own wickedness. They would not meekly accept their own condemnation. This brings us to Stephen’s last charge.
I. A TERRIFIC CHARGE (Act 7:51-52)
“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
“Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.”
As we have followed Stephen’s argument, we are driven to the justness of Stephen’s conclusion. Before ever he spoke the words just read, the Jews had already caught Stephen’s implication. They were keyed to a high pitch of resentment, as Stephen gave His final charge. Truth cuts deeply, and it hurts as it cuts. Let us take Stephen’s threefold charge, step by step.
1. Ye stiffnecked. This expression was not of Stephen’s own coinage. God had spoken before in a similar strain. God had told of those who hardened their hearts and stiffened their necks. Of the fathers, God had said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people.” In fact five times in the days of Moses, this charge had been made. See Exo 32:9; Exo 33:3; Exo 33:5; Exo 34:9; and Deu 9:6.
No wonder, then, that Stephen likened the sons to their fathers.
2. Ye uncircumcised in heart and ears. This was a terrific charge. The Jews were great sticklers for the religious rite of circumcision. The Gentiles to the Jews were uncircumcised dogs. Jonathan had once said to his armour-bearer, “Come, and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised.” David had thrown at Goliath the stigma, “Who is this uncircumcised?”
Stephen’s contention was that the sins of Israel had made the typical significance of their circumcision, uncircumcision. They were circumcised in the flesh, but uncircumcised in their hearts and minds. They had a symbolical religious rite, but had lost its symbolism. Thus, they had a form, without the power thereof. Circumcision is nothing, without a new creature.
3. Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost. “Resist” is a war term. It suggests a besieged city, straitly shut up against the enemy. It speaks of stubbornness. A heart that withstands, a will that is unbroken. It describes a tightly closed door, a door locked and bolted against God.
The Holy Ghost was manifest in Old Testament times. The Fathers withstood the Spirit of God. “Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: when your fathers tempted Me.”
The fathers resisted the Holy Ghost, so also did the sons of Stephen’s day.
4. As your fathers… so ye. Stephen asks, “Which of the Prophets have not your fathers persecuted?” He says they even slew those who prophesied, shewing before of the coming of Christ, the Just One. Then he added, “Of whom we have been now the betrayers and murderers.”
The charge was so evidently true, that the people knew their guilt Stephen stood before them giving them an X-ray picture of their own lives. He showed them the sin of their hearts. He made that sin stand forth in lurid colors, by the contrasts he had made between them and their fathers. He made their sin the more prominent by pressing home to their consciences the light against which they had sinned. He said, in effect, “You have been betrayers and murderers of Christ, even you who received the Law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”
How these wicked men proved all that Stephen had said in his charge by their treatment of Stephen himself. Their act in the martyrdom of Stephen enforced the truth of Stephen’s contentions.
We must stop here and we will take up the Martyrdom of Stephen in our next address on the Book of Acts.
II. WAS STEPHEN TOO OUTSPOKEN?
There are those who think that Stephen was too outspoken, and that by the words of his own mouth he brought upon himself the sentence of death. For our part we fear that most Christians of our own day are quite the opposite. They are given altogether too much to fluttering flags of truce. They soft-pedal where they should cry aloud. They yield convictions where they should stand without flinching.
There is a cry for “peace” at the cost of “faithfulness” to Christ. Men who dare to expose error, and who courageously fight for the faith, are called trouble-makers and disrupters of harmony.
Shall we cry aloud and spare not, or shall we succumb to the call of the stand-patters, who do nothing but pour oil on machinery that is running out of gear? Shall we dare to be a Daniel and disregarding the king’s commandment, pray with our windows open toward Jerusalem; or, shall we close our windows and pray in the secret cloister, where we will cause no offence?
Much of the spineless inertia that grips church men today is the result of lukewarmness in spirit. Of such the Lord has said, “Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouth.”
A graveyard may be quiet, but it is not conducive to life and light. We stand hard by Stephen and his fearless defence of the Truth; we endorse his courage and accept his words as the expression of a man who was a God-sent witness, filled with the “Holy Ghost and wisdom.” Stephen was not a wild fanatic foaming at the mouth with words of unbridled folly. To be sure, Stephen spoke words that “cut to the heart” but the Word of God always “cuts”-it is a two-edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and joints and marrow, and it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Sermons that have no bite, no hook in them, are spineless, and useless.
III. THE FRENZIED MOB THAT STONED STEPHEN (Act 7:54; Act 7:58-59)
A mob maddened by unbridled frenzy is sure to be destructive. A tornado is as easily controlled, as such a mob. A raging fire driven by a tempest is no more ruthless in its ruin. Here are some of the descriptions God has given us of the mob that stoned Stephen.
1. They were cut to the heart. The sword of the truth which Stephen wielded cut deep. It laid bare the inner heart-throbs of the people who denied Christ. We cannot but wonder what a scene it will be when God finally lays bare every life. There is a day coming when the dead, small and great, must stand before the Great White Throne. In that day the books will be opened. The secret thoughts of the heart will be unveiled. The words and deeds of the wicked will be spread before all eyes.
Will the wicked then be “cut to the heart”? They will. However, they cannot instigate a grand rush on Christ, the Judge. They will no doubt cry out, but they will cringe away from before the face of Him who sits on the throne. They will see the sins of their hearts; see the heinous iniquity of their deeds; but they cannot stone the One who lays bare their shame.
From the Great White Throne, and from the face of Him who sits upon it, the heaven and the earth will flee away, and there will be found no room for them. So, also, from that throne will the wicked fall back into the Lake of Fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
2. They gnashed on him with their teeth. The people were like mad dogs, foaming out their shame. They gnashed against Stephen even as they had gnashed against the Son of God, when He stood before Pilate, and as He later hung upon the Cross.
Will the wicked gnash their teeth when, in the last day, they stand before God? Will they gnash their teeth as they pass out into their final doom? Yes, they will. Christ said of the evil servant, that He would “cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Why should sinners in their fury press on toward their doom? Why should they with hard and impenitent hearts set themselves against the Lord? They are but hastening on to where they will gnaw their very tongues for pain.
The stubborn folly of those who gnashed their teeth against Stephen is no more manifest, than is the folly of all who hold out today against Christ. Oh, sinner, bend the knee, break the will, confess your sin; kiss the Son lest He turn from you in the way.
3. They cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears. This whole picture is of a crowd swayed by passion, and dead to reason. They would not allow Stephen to finish his address-they stopped their ears. They were not open to conviction. Under the full knowledge of their sins, they madly rushed out against the one who had exposed them.
It seems that hell was turned loose. Men were driven by demons. It is the same today, Christ still is despised and rejected of men. He is still hated, maligned, trodden under the feet of men. Some who profess to be His friends are, in fact His chief enemies-He is being betrayed with a kiss, set at naught in the house of His friends.
Men, against all reason, are pulling wide the throttle and madly driving on to hell.
The Prophet David said, “Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.” So indeed it proved true in Stephen’s case. They had eyes that did not see, and ears that did not hear. They even placed their fingers in their ears and ran against Stephen.
4. They cast Stephen out of the city and stoned him. Thus began the sad story of martyrdom that has blotted the pages of the history of the Church. And yet, the blood of the martyrs has proved to be the life of the Church. Persecution has not stopped the progress of the Gospel. It has the rather produced saints with iron in their blood. It has the rather caused saints to press on and on with the Gospel message. When one died a martyr, a dozen seemed to spring from his funeral pyre.
“I saw the martyr at the stake.
The flames could not her courage shake,
Nor death her soul appall;
I asked her whence her strength was given,
She looked triumphantly toward Heaven,
And told me, ‘Christ is all'”
IV. LET US CONSIDER THE LAST HOURS OF STEPHEN (Act 7:55)
How soul-stirring are the scenes which now confront us. Stephen was a man full of faith and power; he was a man of wisdom-but, he was more. Stephen had a courage that knew no fear. Let us watch him as the crowd surged around him, as they ran upon him and cast him out of the city and stoned him.
1. He looked steadfastly toward heaven. Of one thing we may be assured: Stephen did not turn to men in the hour of his need. His face had an upward turn. From whence came his help? Did it come from the hills? Nay. Did it come from his co-laborers in the Gospel? No. His help came from the Lord.
Of another thing we may be assured; as Stephen saw death imminent he did not let his face become downcast, looking into a dismal tomb. He had a faith that pierced the clouds and saw an open Heaven. Death, to Stephen, was only a larger, fuller life. Death, to Stephen, was entrance through an open door to the glories of the skies.
It was D. L. Moody in dying, who said, “Earth recedes, Heaven opens, God calls, and I must go.” The Christian looks upon death as the doorway through which he must pass to be forever with the Lord.
Why did so many martyrs face death with eager anticipation? Why did they sing, and shout, and glorify God?
It was because, to them, death had been robbed of its terrors: death could claim no victory.
Why should we weep for those who sleep?
Our God doth comfort give;
Above the night, in realms of light,
Our dead in Christ still live.
Our God is God, not of the dead,
Who cease to see and know,
He is the God of saints who died,
Yet live above earth’s woe.
Our dead are blest, from toil they rest
Beyond all pain and care;
No tear, no cry; no pang, no sigh,
Can touch their spirits there.
In safe retreat, in joy replete,
They dwell in peace at Home;
They always wait at Heaven’s gate,
The hour that we may come.
The Lord hath said, He’ll bring our dead,
When He comes down the skies;
Then from the gloom of dismal tomb,
Their bodies shall arise.
Up in the air, some place up there
Together we will go,
With Christ to dwell, His praises swell,
Where joys eternal flow.
2. He saw the Glory of God. Here is something that illumines the mind and heart. The glory of God-that was the supreme vision of Christ as He approached the Cross. In the upper room after the supper, He prayed, and said, “Father, the hour is come; glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee.” The Lord Jesus did not discourse in His prayer about the sorrows that He was about to share. He looked through them and beyond them to the glory. He said: “Glorify Thou Me with Thine own self with the glory that I had with Thee before the world was.”
Thus, as Stephen was gnashed upon by the teeth of men, He looked toward Heaven and saw the glory of God.
Natural eyes cannot usually see what Stephen saw. When the glory of God shone from Heaven upon Saul on the Damascus road, he fell to the earth blinded. Here was even a greater glory, that came to Stephen. Peter said that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed. Peter’s words were realized beforehand by Stephen.
Think you now that Stephen was a fanatic madly crying out against those who heard him? If so, God would never have opened the heavens and have shown Stephen His glory.
What will it be to enter into that glory! Yet it is to that very glory that the God of all grace hath called us, after that we have suffered a little while.
“Millions of years our wandering eyes,
May o’er His glories rove.”
Yet, there will always be glory to follow.
On the other side of night,
Is the land of love and light,
On the other side of night;
There the sun ne’er shines,
And the moon declines,
For God’s glory is the light.
V. LET US CONSIDER STEPHEN’S VISION OF HIS LORD (Act 7:55, l.c.)
He saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Such a sight, so far as Divine revelation goes, was never given to another living soul. So many things vital to faith lie within this vision granted unto the Church’s first martyr.
1. There is the proof of the ascension of Christ. Christ had been seen, after His resurrection, as He went up. Peter and the Apostles had preached that He had gone into the heavens, and that He was exalted to the Father’s right hand. Stephen saw Him there. Here was a wonderful witness to Christ’s living reality, and to His presence with God-a witness born by a man who dared to declare the Truth even at the price of his death; and of a man who was filled with the Holy Ghost as he looked and saw.
2. There is the proof of Christ’s supremacy over Satan. He who ascended went up through principalities and powers, and took His seat far above them. The men who surrounded Stephen were children of the wicked one, energized by the devil, the prince of the power of the air, but Stephen saw Christ above them a Conqueror, Thus Stephen knew no fear. Nor should we. We have a victorious Christ who is given all authority and power.
3. There is the proof of His acceptance with the Father. Christ was seen by Stephen at the Father’s right hand. That is the place of acceptance, and of recognition-that is the place of power. Men below were about to martyr Stephen because he preached Christ; men below were set against the Lord and His anointed. Up above how different the scene,-great was the contrast. God was according to the One whom the people despised, all honor and glory. How blessed is the thought:
“God is now willing in Christ reconciled,
Willing to save you and make you His child;
God is now willing, are you?”
If God gives Christ acclaim, should not we? If God is satisfied with Christ, should we not also be satisfied.
4. There is the proof of the Headship of Christ over the Church, Stephen seeing Jesus at the Father’s right hand conceded that Christ the exalted was clothed with authority over the Church. Not man, nor pastor, nor evangelist, nor elder, nor deacon, nor bishop, but Christ is Head of the Church. Not pope, not conference, not ecclesiastical Board, but Christ is Head of the Church.
5. There is the proof that Christ is intimately cognizant and lovingly considerate of His saints who suffer for His sake. Christ standing at the Father’s right hand, is Christ watching, Christ concerned, Christ animated in behalf of His own. The martyr is not one forsaken; he is one observed. The martyr not only saw Heaven opened, but Heaven saw him.
“God lives shall I despair.
As if He were not there?
Is not my life His care,
Is not His hand Divine?”
The Psalmist gave promise-“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, * * Thou art with me.” The Spirit by Isaiah said: “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee.”
How helpful, how full of comfort is this scene of Christ standing in eager concern as His first Christian martyr is stoned to death.
VI. LET US CONSIDER STEPHEN’S LAST PRAYER (Act 7:59-60)
1. He prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Beautiful beyond compare is this prayer of expectancy. Stephen knew where the spirits of those in Christ went at death. He saw Heaven opened not alone to give him a view of God’s glory; not only to show Him Christ standing at the Father’s right hand; but, he saw Heaven opened to give his spirit entrance.
Blessed be the God of grace, when this life is over, there is no oblivion; no spirit held in a cold damp grave-there is departing to be at Home with the Lord.
2. He prayed, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” This prayer breathes the spirit of Christ on the Cross. It does more. It reveals to us the spirit with which Stephen had delivered his apology. Stephen had spoken plainly; he had laid the charge of murder against his hearers, but he had not spoken harshly.
One is reminded of the darkest anathemas that ever felt from the lips of Christ-the Woe! Woe! woe! of the 23rd of Matthew spoken against Jewish hypocrites. The startling names that Christ gave the hypocrites-“Whited sepulchres”; “Blind guides”; Children “of hell”; “Fools and blind”; “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers.” Yet, when one reads the last two verses of Mat 23:1-39, the verses that give Christ’s final words, he understands the spirit with which Christ had spoken. Hear Him: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, * * how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”
So we assert that Stephen’s words of strong condemnation were prompted not by wrath but by deep concern. Even Paul who so plainly outlined before Israel their sin, said, “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, * * I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart * * for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites.”
Let us preach hell, but let us not preach it in a hellish way. How tender the compassion, how genuine the concern that Stephen had for Israel as He prayed, “Lay not this sin to their charge.”
VII. LET US CONSIDER THE ALL GLORIOUS END OF STEPHEN’S LIFE
This is the way the Word put it, “And when he had said this he fell asleep.” “Asleep,” what does that mean? We remember how Christ said, “Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awaken him out of sleep.” The disciples said, “Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.” Then said Jesus plainly, “Lazarus is dead.” Again we read, “Them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.”
The sleep of Lazarus could not mean cessation of existence-because our God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Sleep cannot mean that the spirit of the redeemed is detained by the tomb in unconscious repose, because the spirit goes to God who gave it (Ecc 12:7). Sleep does mean cessation of toil, and trouble. Stephen fell on sleep, because he passed beyond the reach of the surging mob that stoned him. He rested from his labors, and his works will follow him.
Thank God for this delightful view of death. Let us not, however, make the word “sleep” mean anything contrary to the testimony of other Scripture.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
4
Act 7:44. Tabernacle of witness. The tabernacle was a visible and constant symbol of the wisdom and goodness of God, so that Israel could always have His presence.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 7:44. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness. The mention of this Tabernacle of Moloch reminds Stephen that he has not yet spoken of the true Tabernacle, where the Eternal had borne witness of Himself, and of the holy Temple, which occupied subsequently the place of the Tabernacle. The words used by Stephen are from the LXX. of Num 16:18-19, where the sacred tent is called , tabernacle of the witness or the testimony. It receives this name most probably from the fact of Jehovah giving there witness of Himself in the visible glory, the Shekinah, which at certain times rested on the golden mercy-seat of the ark between the cherubim.
According to the fashion he had seen. The superior sanctity of the primitive Tabernacle to the Temple, which afterwards rose in all its stately beauty, is here suggested. The old Tabernacle which has disappeared was fashioned after a pattern given to Moses in the mount by the Eternal and His angels (Exo 25:9-40).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
God’s True House
The pattern for the making of the tabernacle was one of the things God revealed through Moses. Very clearly, Stephen noted that God intended for His pattern to be followed exactly ( Heb 8:5 ). David, partly out of feelings of guilt aroused when he saw the splendor in which he lived in contrast to the simplicity of the tabernacle, wanted to build God a temple ( 1Ki 8:17-18 ; 1Ch 28:3 ). Of course, he was refused because he was a man of war. Instead, Solomon, David’s son, was allowed to build a temple.
Yet, Stephen quickly went on to note that the Creator does not dwell in temples made with men’s hands. Two quotes from Isa 66:1-2 and Psa 102:25 clearly show He cannot be confined like the gods of the pagans ( Act 7:44-50 ; 1Ki 8:27 ). Instead, the universe, which He made, is His throne!
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Act 7:44-47. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness Greek, , of the testimony. The two tables of stone, on which the ten commandments were written, were most properly the testimony, as being a constant testimony of the relation between God and Israel: hence the ark, which contained them, is frequently called the ark of the testimony; and the whole tabernacle in this place, the tabernacle of the testimony. This, says Stephen, was with our fathers in the wilderness, a tabernacle made in all respects as God had appointed, who, speaking unto Moses, commanded him to make it according to the fashion, or model, that he had seen Namely, in the mount, Exo 25:40. As Stephen had been accused of blaspheming the temple, he, with great propriety, takes occasion to speak of their sacred places with due reverence, as raised by special direction from God; and yet corrects that extravagant regard for them, and confidence in them, which the Jews entertained. Doddridge. Which our fathers, that came after Or rather, as more properly signifies, having received; brought in with Jesus That is, with Joshua, when he led them over Jordan; into the possession of the Gentiles Into the land which the Gentiles possessed before. So that Gods favour is not a necessary consequence of inhabiting this land. All along Stephen intimates two things: 1st, That God always loved good men in every land. 2d, That he never loved bad men even in this. Unto the days of David That is, the tabernacle continued for many ages, even unto Davids time, to be the resort of the pious worshippers in Israel; above four hundred years before there was any thought of building a temple. David indeed having found favour before God, desired Greek, , petitioned, this further blessing, on which his heart was set; even to have the honour to find a tabernacle Or a dwelling more stable and splendid; for the God of Jacob But he did not obtain his petition. For, as he had been a man of war, and had shed much blood, God would not permit him to build the temple. He laid a plan for it, however, and consecrated a considerable part of the spoils which he had taken from the enemy toward erecting it. But God remained without any temple till Solomon built him a house Which, till the reign of that prince, he never had commanded or permitted to be done. Observe how wisely the word house is used here, rather than the word temple, with respect to what follows.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
44-50. Instead of either admitting or denying the charge of blasphemy against the temple, he undertakes to show the true religious value of that building. This he does, by first alluding to the movable and perishable nature of the tabernacle, which preceded the temple, and then, by showing, from the prophets, that the presence of God is not limited to temples made with hands. (44) “Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, saying to Moses that he should make it according to the pattern which he had seen; (45) which also, our fathers, having received, brought in with Joshua within the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David, (46) who found favor before God, and desired to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. (47) But Solomon built him a house. (48) Yet the Most High dwells not in temples made with hands, as says the prophet, (49) Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. What house will you build for me? says the Lord; or what is my place of rest? (50) Did not my hand make all these things?” By this statement, the speaker intrenches himself behind undisputed facts of their own history, and the sentiments of their own prophets, in reference to the temple, and is now ready to spring upon them the whole concealed power of the carefully arranged facts from the life of Moses and of Joseph.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
CHURCH EDIFICES
44-50. Here Stephen alludes to the grand spiritual meaning of the portable tabernacle which God dictated to Moses on Sinai and the beautiful symbolic significance of Solomons temple. As the great majority of the Christian church at the present day, preachers and people, are living in the old dispensation, three thousand years behind the age, they awfully grieve the Holy Spirit by wasting the Lords money in costly spires, Gothic domes, memorial windows and other needless expenditures connected with their church edifices; e. g., St. Peters church at Rome cost two hundred millions of dollars, money enough to put the Bible in every home on the earth. It is the greatest monument of idolatry beneath the skies. How strange that Protestants are all doing their best to imitate the Roman Catholics in their needless expenditure and ornamentation of fine edifices. John Wesley said, Whenever the Methodists get to building fine houses they are a ruined people. One hundred thousand dollars of the Lords money are spent on a church edifice, while ten thousand are all we could possibly need, if pride were dead [and it must die before we go to heaven], leaving ninety thousand which would build a hundred churches for the poor heathens. Oh! what a victory for Jesus! No wonder the Holy Spirit has left the fine edifices. How strange that leading preachers will allude to Solomons temple as an argument for expenditure and ornamentation in a church edifice. In so doing they betray their ignorance and attitude, demonstrating to all luminous people that they are not only living away back in the dispensation of Moses, but shamefully ignorant of the beautiful symbolic truth revealed in the Bible. The reason Solomons temple contains so much gold and artistic ornamentation was because, belonging to the symbolic dispensation, it typified the sanctified heart of the Pentecostal age. So all of that gold and splendor do not mean that we are to have it unless we are stupid enough, like the crab, to go backward instead of forward; but it does mean positively and unequivocally that our hearts, the temple of the Holy Ghost, shall be sanctified wholly, literally radiant with the beauty of holiness.
48. But the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:
49. Heaven is my throne, and earth is the footstool of my feet: what house will ye build unto me, saith the Lord, or what shall be the place of my rest?
50. Hath not my hand made all these things? It is a historic fact that a hundred and fifty years of the Christian era had passed away, and all of the apostles long been playing on their golden harps, before a church edifice was ever built. We find Paul at Troas preaching in a third-story room. Like the holiness movement at the present day, the Apostolic churches used little rented rooms in garrets and cellars, private houses and green trees. An awful tide of idolatry is at the present day running in the line of church edifices. If the house should burn down and the preacher backslide a whole modern congregation would collapse spiritually in twenty-four hours and conclude they hadnt a bit of religion. I am glad to see the holiness camps everywhere rendezvoused beneath the twinkling stars, amid the primeval forests, thus utilizing Gods primitive temples. How will we ever get the heathen saved if we do not quit sacrificing the Lords money to that hellish goddess, Pride, in needless expenditure on church edifices, thus using Gods money to sacrifice to devils. The whole compoodle is an insult to God, as Stephen here says. He does not want His money wasted in this way, thus mocking His majesty. When all of these fine edifices dwindle into insignificance and sink into total eclipse, contrasted with the broad temples of the firmament, roofed with the glittering constellations, lighted by the sun, moon and stars, floored with the beautiful green sward, jotted with Rocky Mountain pulpits, and ventilated by the salubrious breezes wafted from the saline billows of majestic oceans whose thundering waves respond to the music of roaring thunders enlivened by forked lightnings. Instead of settling down and going to sleep amid the idolatrous incantations of a fine edifice we are to utilize the meeting-house God has already built, which is the whole world, and our commission is to every creature.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Act 7:44-50. The speech comes nearer the charge it is to refute. The Temple itself is wrong. Moses acted on direct Divine injunction as to the tabernacle of witness which he made according to the pattern showed him and which the fathers carried with them in the wilderness (Exodus 25; especially Exo 25:9; Exo 25:40). This Tabernacle is contrasted on the one hand with the tent of Moloch, on the other with the Temple of Solomon. While the fathers carried it, they were successful. Joshua (Gr. Jesus) thrust out the nations before them from the promised land, which they possessed and occupied till the times of David. David asked that he might find a habitation for the God of Jacob. Instead of this the Temple was built by Solomon, who was less favoured by God than David; and the Temple was not a tabernacle, such as David would have built, but a house. The sentiment of Act 7:48 occurs again in Pauls speech at Athens, and was, no doubt, a commonplace in the thought of Hellenists who dwelt at a distance from the Temple; Isa 66:1, now quoted, forced it into their mouth. Our Lord quotes it (Mat 5:34 f.), with a somewhat different purpose, it is true, but His view of the Temple (Mar 13:2; Mar 14:58, Joh 4:21-24) is that of Stephen and Paul: it is not necessary for true religion.
Act 7:51-53. The Speech Summed up.The phrases in which the audience is characterised often occur in OT. Their whole history has been a series of recalcitrancies against the Holy Spirit, and the present generation are following their fathers. The question of Act 7:52 gives intensity to the charge that the Jews killed those who were sent to them. It is found in more detailed form in Mar 12:1-9, Mat 23:30 ff., Heb 11:37. The righteous probably from Isa 53:11; the phrase might not at once be understood, but becomes clear in the latter part of the sentence. The end of the speech (Act 7:53) contains a sting; the legislation of Sinai took place in splendid pomp, with thousands of attending angels (Deu 33:2, Psa 68:17 f.), and the Jews rightly look back on it as the greatest event in the worlds history; but they have not kept the Law, and so all their pride in it is turned to foolishness. They have always disobeyed the Giver of the Law, they have worshipped other gods, they have confined Him in a stone temple, they have killed His messengers and now His final messenger of whom all the prophets spoke.
[A few words may be added on the speech as a masterly handling of a difficult situation. Stephen desires to do two things: (a) to prove that religion is independent of place, and thus vindicate his attitude to the Temple, and (b) to bring home the ingrained rebelliousness of the Jewish people, and thus exhibit the rejection of Jesus as quite in keeping with their character. Such home truths were too unpalatable to be patiently received; if Stephen was to gain a hearing it could only be by giving an exposition to which no exception could be taken. His speech looks at first like a string of irrelevant incidents; but they are drawn from the OT, thus he secures himself against interruption; and they are skilfully chosen to illustrate his two main themes. Revelation comes in Mesopotamia and Haran, in Egypt and at Sinai. In Canaan Abraham has no possession, the tomb he purchases is in Shechem; Moses treads holy ground and the angel appears to him in Midian; the Hebrews had the Law given, and the Tabernacle, after a heavenly model, in the wilderness; with it they conquered Canaan, and were content with it till the time of David. Scripture itself proclaimed that no Temple could serve as Gods dwelling. Again, the treatment of Joseph by his brethren, the rejection of Moses by the Hebrews in bondage, their disobedience in the making of the golden calf, the persecution of the prophets, all found their appropriate climax in the betrayal and murder of Jesus. Thus with consummate skill the speaker unfolds and illustrates his theses, saying all the while what none can controvert. Only when the case is complete on these lines, does history pass into invective, naturally to the immediate sealing of his doom, which, however, with such views would presumably have been inevitable.A. S. P.] See further on Stephen, pp. 639f., 767.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 44
The tabernacle of witness. The tabernacle was the sacred tent, under which the ark containing the covenant made by Jehovah with his people, accompanied by visible tokens of his presence, was received. It was hence called the tabernacle of witness, as containing the testimony or witness of God’s promised protection and blessing.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
7:44 {5} Our fathers had the tabernacle of {r} witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
(5) Moses indeed erected a tabernacle, but that was to call them back to the one whom he had seen on the mountain.
(r) That is, of the covenant.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Stephen’s view of the temple 7:44-50
Stephen effectively refuted the general charges that he blasphemed God and Moses (Act 6:11; cf Act 7:2-16) and spoke against the Law (Act 6:13; cf. Act 7:17-43). He next addressed the charge that he spoke against the temple (Act 6:13). The charges that he had said Jesus would destroy the temple and alter Jewish customs (Act 6:14) were really specific accusations growing out of Stephen’s view of the temple.
The Jewish leaders of Stephen’s day attached inordinate importance to the temple, as they did to the Mosaic Law and the Promised Land. They had distorted God’s view of the temple as they had distorted His meaning in the Law. Instruction concerning both the Law, which specified Israel’s walk before people, and the tabernacle, which specified her worship of God, came to Moses when he was out of the Promised Land, at Mt. Sinai.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Stephen pointed out that it was the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness that God had ordered built, not the temple. God even gave Moses blueprints to follow in constructing it because its design had instructive value. The tabernacle of testimony was important primarily because it contained God’s revealed will and it was the place that God’s presence dwelt in a localized sense. The "testimony" was the tablets of the Mosaic Law that rested in the ark of the covenant.