More than most, this speech of Stephen has been subject to that skepticism that is inclined to regard all the speeches of Acts as Luke’s own composition. There is no denying that Luke’s hand may be seen in them all in their literary style and vocabulary. But there is about each of them a distinctiveness that not only fits each to its context, but in some cases, at least, to the speaker’s own writings elsewhere (see, e.g., disc. on 5:30, 13:39; 15:13ff.; 20:17–38). To attribute this entirely to Luke’s art is to give him greater credit than he deserves. In short, there is every reason for confidence that the speeches are genuine reflections of what was actually said, and Stephen’s no less than the others. In this case, of course, there are no external criteria on which to base such a judgment. But there is an aptness about the speech and features that certainly mark it off from the others. “The speech is so distinctive within Acts and chapters 6–8 contain such distinctive features that the most plausible view is that Luke is here drawing on a source which has preserved quite accurately the views of the Hellenists or of Stephen in particular … Certainly the whole narrative explains the subsequent persecution of the Hellenists so well that there is no real reason to doubt its essential historicity” (Dunn, Unity, pp. 270f; see also L. W. Barnard, “St. Stephen and Early Alexandrian Christianity,” NTS 7 (1960–61], pp. 31ff.).
A striking feature of the speech is its emphasis on Moses. He looms larger here than in any other speech in Acts, larger indeed than Christ himself, to whom there are only two references in all of the fifty-two verses—and even then not by his own name, but allusively, once in a reference to the Prophet-like-Moses (v. 37) and once in connection with the prophets in general “who predicted the coming of the Righteous One” (v. 52; cf. the same phenomenon in Paul’s speech in 17:22–31). It is possible, of course, that Stephen was not allowed to complete what he wanted to say and that, had he been, he would have gone on in the usual way to declare that the Servant, whom men had killed, had been raised by God from the dead (for as it stands there is no mention, either, of the resurrection, which is central to most other speeches). It is possible, too, that Moses was especially important to Stephen as prefiguring Christ (this was certainly the case with a number of Jewish sects; cf. esp. vv. 35–38) and that the story of Moses was always an integral part of his proclamation. However, without entirely dismissing this last possibility, the over-riding reason for the dominance of Moses in this speech lies nearer to hand.
Stephen had been charged on two counts: that he had spoken against the temple, and against the law and, therefore, against Moses (6:11, 14). In meeting these charges, he set about showing how the nation itself had spoken against Moses. And this rebellious spirit had not only manifested itself during the law-giver’s lifetime but had characterized the whole history of the nation (vv. 9, 35, 39, 51, 52). Stephen’s defense (it was not defense at all in the technical sense) was not to deny their accusations (his own safety appears not to have been a consideration) but to counterattack with charges of his own. His weapon was Israel’s history, and his strategy to recite that history at length, explicating two themes. (This use of the Old Testament follows a familiar literary pattern; see, e.g., Josh. 24:2–13; Neh. 9:7–13; Pss. 78; 105:12–43; 106:6–42; Ezek. 20; Judith 5:6–18.) The first of these themes we have already indicated, namely, that the Jews themselves, who had received God’s law, had not obeyed it and were guilty, in that sense, of “speaking against Moses.” The second, in response to their charge concerning the temple, was that “the Most High does not live in houses made by men” (v. 48). In developing this point, Stephen adopted a position unlike that of any other writer in the New Testament. Where others saw the temple as having once had a place in the divine economy, though now no longer, Stephen saw it as a mistake from the first. In his view, the temple was never intended by God.
The extraordinary amount of space that Luke has allocated to the speech may be due in some part to its very distinctiveness. To this day, people have been fascinated by it, and Luke himself may have been no exception. Moreover, he saw Stephen as a significant figure in the history that he was narrating—a pioneer and in some sense an exemplar of the new direction that the church was to take. He was, so to speak, the connecting link between Peter and Paul—a link indispensable to the chain of salvation history that God was forging. Luke’s information concerning Stephen, and the speech in particular, could have come from any one of a number of possible sources, including Philip and Paul.
7:1–3 As president of the Sanhedrin (see disc. on 4:5), the high priest, probably Caiaphas, opened the proceedings with a formal question (v. 1), to which Stephen gave him the courtesy of an equally formal reply: Brothers and Fathers (v. 2; cf. 22:1; see note on 1:16). He then launched into one of his two major themes. His first objective was to show that “the Most High does not live in houses made by men,” and this accounts for his reference to the God of glory appearing to Abraham (v. 2). The phrase is suggestive of that particular manifestation of God’s glory that came to be known as the “Shekinah”—God’s glory dwelling with men. The Shekinah was associated especially with “the tabernacle of the Testimony” (cf. v. 44; Exod. 25:8; 40:34–38) and at a later date with the temple (Ezek. 43:2, 4). But Stephen established at the outset that God needs neither temple nor tent, for he appeared to Abraham while he was living in Mesopotamia.
This was, strictly speaking, the fertile region east of the river Orontes, covering the upper and middle Euphrates and the lands watered by the rivers Habur and Tigris, that is, modern eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It included Haran. But Greek and Roman writers from the fourth century B.C. extended the use of the term to describe the whole Tigris-Euphrates Valley, that is, the modern state of Iraq. Thus Stephen speaks of Abraham’s original home of Ur in Babylonia as being in Mesopotamia, before he had gone to live in Haran (v. 2). Moreover, he cites God’s call of Abraham as coming to him in Ur rather than in Haran, as Genesis 11:31 has it. None of this presents any difficulty. It was simply a matter of conflating the biblical evidence, for both Genesis 15:7 and Nehemiah 9:7 (cf. Josh. 24:3) make it clear that Abraham’s call was from Ur no less than from Haran. With this, Jewish tradition also agreed (cf. Philo, On Abraham 70–72; Josephus, Antiquities 1.154–157). It is not inappropriate, therefore, that Stephen should adapt the account of Abraham’s call from Haran to give expression to the earlier call and germane, of course, to his purpose. For by this means the point was made even made forcefully that God’s call came to Abraham far from this land (v. 4) and from “this holy place” (6:13; cf. v. 7).
7:4–5 Maintaining this theme, Stephen went on to show how God was present with Abraham in all of his wanderings. These took him first from Ur to Haran. Genesis 11:31 tells us that this migration was led by Abraham’s father, Terah. Stephen assumes this when he recalls that it was after Terah’s death in Haran that God’s call came to Abraham again, and again he moved on. However, the details of his narration are here at odds with the Genesis story. He speaks of Abraham as leaving only after Terah died, whereas the evidence of Genesis is that Terah lived for many years after the departure of Abraham (cf. Gen. 11:26, 32; 12:4). Either, then, Stephen was mistaken (and Genesis at this point is susceptible to misunderstanding; Terah’s death is anticipated in Gen. 11:32) or he was drawing on a different tradition. The Samaritan version of Genesis 11:32, for example, has Terah dying at one hundred forty-five years instead of two hundred five. Either way, nothing hangs on the point as far as the speech is concerned, though if the detail does reflect a different tradition, it makes it more likely that the speech came to Luke from a source and not out of his own head, since the LXX, Luke’s own preferred version, bears no trace of this tradition (see note on v. 46).
From Haran, God sent him (i.e., Abraham) to this land where you are now living (v. 4)—Canaan, as it was then. Stephen’s use of the pronoun you may mean that he was not himself a Palestinian. Otherwise, apart from this instance, he appears to oscillate between the first and second person depending on whether he wishes to associate himself or not with the events he is describing (e.g., vv. 15, 52). As for Abraham, he still had no place in this country to call his own (cf. Heb. 11:13–16)—not so much as a foot of ground (v. 5; this may have been a proverbial saying; cf. Deut. 2:5). The reference is probably to Abraham’s earlier years in Canaan. Later, he did at least have a burial ground (see v. 16), though even this was his only by right of purchase, not as God’s gift. God did promise, however, that one day he and his descendants … would possess the land (v. 5; cf. Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7). Canaan, of course, was only ever possessed by Abraham “in” his descendants, never in his own right. But in the context of the Hebrews’ corporate view of society, the promise was a valid one, though, for a long time, because he had no children, it must have sorely tried Abraham’s faith (v. 5; cf. Gen. 15:1–6; Rom. 4:16–22).
7:6–7 To this promise was added the rider that when Abraham did have descendants, before the land would be theirs, they would live in a country not their own where they would be slaves and maltreated for four hundred years (v. 6). In Exodus 12:40 the number of years is given as four hundred thirty for the same period, but the difference is simply that of a round figure as against a more precise calculation (cf. Gal. 3:17). The quotation contained in these verses is from LXX Genesis 15:13f., with some alteration (nothing of any consequence) and the addition, as it would seem, of some words from Exodus 3:12. The latter served to make explicit what is only implied in the Genesis passage, namely, that Abraham’s posterity would return to Canaan once they were released from their bondage, there to worship God. The phrase in this place (v. 7) probably means nothing more than the land, though there is a similarity in the Greek to the phrase used by Stephen’s accusers in 6:13.
7:8 It was at this time that God gave to Abraham the rite of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (cf. Gen. 17: Rom. 4:11). From Abraham it passed to his descendants, and thus the history is carried forward to the story of Joseph. Stephen’s only reason for mentioning circumcision may have been to effect transition in his narrative from Canaan to Egypt. On the other hand, he may have seen it as providing further support for his thesis. For the covenant of which circumcision was the sign embraced the Jews’ whole relationship with God, and yet it had been established by God without reference to either the temple or the law.
7:9–14 It would appear that much of the detail of these verses is here simply for its own sake. It was part of a story that they all loved to hear. Nevertheless, the speaker did not lose sight of his theme and employed the familiar detail in some part, at least, to further his objective. So, for example, there is a constant reiteration of the word Egypt (vv. 9, 10, 11, 12, 15) to remind his hearers that God is not bound to any one place (and because of Stephen’s Alexandrian background? see note on 6:9). He was with Joseph in Egypt and rescued him from all his troubles (vv. 9, 10; cf. Gen. 39:2, 21). He gave him “grace” or “favor” (Gk. charis) and wisdom to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams and to propose sensible measures against the famine of which the dreams were a warning (v. 10; cf. Gen. 41:37ff.; Ps. 105:16–22). It was of God, therefore, that Pharaoh made him ruler over Egypt (v. 10) and that Joseph was able to succor his family (vv. 11–14). All this God did in Egypt, working salvation for his people in spite of, and indeed through, the evil done by them to Joseph (cf. 2:23f.; 3:15f.; 4:10–12). In giving their number as seventy-five in all (v. 14), Stephen was following the text of LXX Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5. The Hebrew text numbers them only as seventy. But compare LXX Deuteronomy 10:22, which has only seventy. Josephus (Antiquities 2.176–183) follows the Hebrew seventy, and Philo gives the two numbers.
7:15–16 When Jacob and his sons died, their bodies were brought back to Shechem (the modern Nablus, between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal), and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought (v. 16). According to Genesis 50:13, however, Jacob was laid to rest, not in Shechem, but in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron. Some have sought to overcome this difficulty by suggesting that only his sons are the subject of the verbs in this sentence, or that the he of verse 15 is Joseph, not Jacob. But a further difficulty must still be met. Joseph is the only son of Jacob who is expressly said to have been buried in Shechem (Josh. 24:32). The burial place of the others is not mentioned, or even that their bodies were taken from Egypt. According to Josephus they were, but he says that they were buried at Hebron (Antiquities 2.198–200). Only Samaritan tradition, as far as we know, agrees with Stephen that it was at Shechem, which by now had become the center of Samaritan life (Sir. 50:26; Josephus, Antiquities 11.340–345). When we consider the prominence of Shechem as compared with Hebron at the time of the conquest, there is certainly no difficulty in accepting that it might have been chosen instead of Machpelah as the resting place of all of the sons. What is striking, however, is that Stephen must have been aware of the tradition that Jacob at least was buried in Hebron, yet he chose not to mention it (see note on v. 46).
Another problem is presented by Stephen’s description of the burial place. Abraham did buy a grave site, but it was the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite (Gen. 23:16). The tribe of Hamor did sell land to Shechem, but it was to Jacob (Gen. 33:19; Josh. 24:32). How, then, can we explain the statement of the passage before us? Perhaps the two stories were confused in popular tradition. Or Stephen may have interpreted the second in the light of Abraham’s having earlier set up an altar at Shechem. Putting it another way, it was Abraham’s earlier hallowing of the spot that led ultimately to its purchase by Jacob, and so in a shorthand sort of way it could be said that Abraham had bought the field (cf. disc. on 1:18f.). But perhaps the simplest explanation is that of Bruce, who suggests that Stephen has telescoped the two accounts, as he did in the story of Abraham’s call in verse 2 (Book, p. 149, n. 39). That this has produced difficulties may point to an author other than Luke, and that he has allowed these difficulties to remain may tell us something about Luke’s editorial policy.
7:17–19 During the years that the Israelites spent in Egypt two things were happening that, in human terms, paved the way for the Exodus and the fulfillment of God’s promise (cf. v. 7): first, the number of Abraham’s descendants was increasing (v. 17; cf. Exod. 1:7), and second, the Egyptian attitude toward them was hardening (Exod. 1:9, 12). Stephen repeats the words of Exodus 1:8 when he tells how a king, who knew nothing about Joseph, became ruler of Egypt (v. 18). This statement could be understood literally, especially if the notice marks the return to a native dynasty (the eighteenth or, more likely, the nineteenth) after the rule of the Hyksos kings, but more likely it meant that the kings chose not to recognize Joseph’s service (cf. Matt. 25:12 for this use of “to know”), either because of his association with the Hyksos or because the number of his people posed a threat. The Egyptian answer to the “Hebrew problem” was to use them as forced labor and to compel them to practice infanticide (v. 19; confined to male children, according to Exod. 1:15f.; cf. Matt. 2:16ff.).
7:20–22 It was at this time that Moses was born (v. 20; cf. Gal. 4:4 and see note on 22:3 on the frequent occurrence of the verbs “born … cared for … taught” in ancient writers). Stephen recounts the story of Moses in three parts, corresponding to the three periods of forty years that made up his life (cf. vv. 23, 30). First was his providential upbringing. At birth he was no ordinary child (v. 20; cf. Exod. 2:2; Heb. 11:23), literally, “beautiful to God.” This may be a Hebrew idiom with the sense almost of a superlative, “a very beautiful child” (GNB, cf. Jonah 3:3, “a very important city,” i.e., “a very large city”). Or it may mean that in God’s judgment he was beautiful, that is, that he found favor with God (cf. 23:1). If the latter, it was a conclusion drawn from the story that follows. After three months, when they were no longer able to hide him, Moses’ parents exposed him, but Pharaoh’s daughter found him and brought him up as her own son (v. 21; cf. Exod. 2:1–10; Josephus, Antiquities 2.232–237). Stephen was indebted more to tradition than to the Old Testament when he declared that Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (v. 22; cf. Philo, Life of Moses 1.5; 2.83; Josephus, Antiquities 2.232–237; this notion subsequently played a considerable part in Jewish legends about Moses; cf. also Luke 2:52). Stephen may again have drawn on tradition in describing him as a powerful in speech and action (v. 22; cf. Josephus, Antiquities 2.238–242; 3.13–21). This is very like the description of Jesus in Luke 24:19 and may have been made so by Luke, though it may also have been part of Stephen’s purpose to show how alike Jesus and Moses were (see disc. on vv. 33–39).
7:23–25 In the second part, with the story of the middle years of Moses’ life, the other of Stephen’s two themes appears, namely, that Israel had shown a rebellious spirit throughout its history. Joseph had experienced it when his brothers turned against him (v. 9; cf. Gen. 37:11; John 1:10f.), but it now became even more apparent in the people’s refusal to accept Moses’ efforts on their behalf. In the main, Stephen was following the narrative of Exodus 2:11 when he told how Moses decided to visit his fellow Israelites (v. 23). But he added to the biblical narrative the reference to Moses’ decision (cf. Heb. 11:24f.), expressing it in such a way as to imply that the idea was not his own, but that it was “laid upon his heart” (so the Greek) by God. Stephen wanted to show that Moses was living out God’s will and that the people’s resistance was, therefore, nothing other than their resistance to God (cf. 6:11). The dating of this incident to the time when Moses was forty years old (v. 23) has no authority in the Old Testament, which tells us only that he was eighty years old when he went to Pharaoh to ask for the people’s release (Exod. 7:7) and one hundred twenty years old when he died (Deut. 34:7). However, Midrash Tanhuma on Exodus 2:6 says that “Moses was in the palace of Pharaoh twenty years, but some say forty years, and forty years in Midian, and forty years in the wilderness.” Stephen’s words echo this tradition.
On the occasion about which Stephen was speaking, Moses saw an Israelite being mistreated by an Egyptian (v. 24). He intervened on behalf of the Israelite, killing his oppressor. As the Old Testament tells the story, it would appear that the thing was done in secret and that Moses intended it so (Exod. 2:12). But as Stephen told it, it was done with the Hebrews’ full knowledge and in the hope that it would establish him as their leader—Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them (v. 25; cf. Josephus, Antiquities 2.205–216). He did not reckon, however, with their unresponsiveness, and in fact, they did not understand (v. 25; cf. vv. 35, 39).
7:26–29 This was borne out the next day when he would have acted again as their leader. Two Israelites were fighting, and when Moses attempted to reconcile them by appealing to them as brothers, the man who was mistreating the other pushed Moses aside (v. 27; cf. v. 39; Exod. 2:14). This detail is not found in Exodus, but again it underlines the contumaciousness of Israel. It was this, according to Stephen, rather than his fear of Pharaoh (as in Exodus), that caused Moses to flee (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 2.254–257, where the cause is the jealousy of the Egyptians). So Moses fled to Midian, where he settled as a foreigner (v. 29; cf. Exod. 2:16)—a region that is generally thought to have lain in northwestern Arabia on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba (Ptolemy, Geography 6.7.27; Josephus, Antiquities 2.254–257). Since, however, Midianites are known to have penetrated westward (Num. 10:29), the land of Midian in this reference may be taken to include the Sinai peninsula. Moses married a Midianite woman, Zipporah (Exod. 2:21), and by her had two sons, Gershom and Eliezer (v. 29; cf. Exod. 2:22; 4:20; 18:3; 1 Chron. 23:14f.).
7:30–34 The third part of the story covers the years of the Exodus. Verse 30 is literally “when forty years were fulfilled,” suggesting that all was proceeding according to divine plan (see disc. on v. 23). It was now that God appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush (v. 30; cf. Exod. 3:2ff.). The angel of Stephen’s narrative is plainly none other than God (cf. vv. 31, 33; Exod. 3:2, 7; 1 Cor. 10:1–4; 2 Cor. 3:15–18). And so, for a moment (whether intentionally or not), we are back with the earlier motif of God revealing himself in whatever place seemed good, not in any one place. And wherever God appeared, that place was holy ground. So Moses was told to take off his sandals (v. 33), as later the priests would do in the temple in their daily service. In Exodus 3:1 these events are located at Horeb, but elsewhere the Old Testament uses that name interchangeably with Sinai, and there is no difficulty, therefore, in Stephen’s naming that mountain. On approaching the theophany to look more closely (v. 31, the word implies careful observation), Moses was shown that this was indeed the God of his ancestors. The description of God in verse 32 immediately calls to mind the covenant promise to Abraham and his descendants (vv. 6, 7; cf. 3:13), with the implication that God would now save his people as he had promised and that in doing so would use Moses as his agent (cf. Exod. 3:7–10). The sequence of events in Exodus 3:5–10 is reversed by Stephen for no apparent reason. The quotation of Exodus 3:6 in verse 32 is not an accurate reproduction of the LXX. It has affinities with the Samaritan recension (but see note on v. 46).
7:35–38 And now Stephen leaves the narrative style of his discourse to make instead four statements concerning Moses, each marked in the Greek by the repeated demonstrative “this (man).” At the same time, a subsidiary theme, the parallel between Moses and Christ, makes its appearance (see disc. on v. 22). The first statement concerns the rejection of the one whom God sent (v. 35). In this connection Stephen cites Exodus 2:14, Who made you ruler and judge? (v. 35; cf. v. 27), but notice how he himself describes Moses, not merely as judge, but as “ruler and redeemer” (so the Greek). The allusion to Christ is unmistakable, for though he is never called “redeemer” in the New Testament, he is called “a ransom,” a related word in the Greek, and the work of redemption is clearly his (Luke 1:68; 2:38; 24:21; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:18f.; see note on 8:32f.). Significantly, the title “redeemer” belongs to God in the Old Testament, but Stephen saw Moses both as the type of Christ and as acting for God and therefore able to bear such a name. That this was indeed an act of divine redemption is expressed in the words he was sent through (lit. “with the hand”; see disc. on 4:28) the angel (v. 35), that is, with the help of God himself (see disc. on v. 30).
By the hand of God, Moses was able to do wonders and miraculous signs (see note on 2:22) in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for forty years in the desert (v. 36). There is nothing in this second statement that cannot be borne out by the Old Testament, but again the allusion to Christ is unmistakable, the more so as Luke brings Stephen’s expression into line with descriptions elsewhere of the work of Christ and of his followers (cf. 2:22, 43; 6:8). It could be said of both Christ and Moses that their ministry was confirmed by miracles. The third statement could also be said of both—that they were prophets. Moses had declared, God will send you a prophet like me (v. 37; cf. Deut. 18:15ff.), and Luke’s readers (if not Stephen’s hearers) would yet again have picked up the allusion to Christ, for he was deemed to be the eschatological Prophet-like-Moses (see disc. on 3:22 and note on 7:46).
Stephen’s fourth statement concerns Moses’ role with the assembly in the desert (v. 38). It could not have been lost on the Christian reader that the people of Israel are here called in the Greek text “the church” (ekklēsia). This word is generally reserved in the New Testament for Christian use (see disc. on 5:11), and in its use in this verse we may see Luke’s hand underlining what he saw to be Stephen’s point and inviting us to see in Moses the type of Christ, the mediator of the new covenant (cf. Heb. 8:13; 9:15; 12:24). Moses was both “with (lit. ‘in’ or ‘among’) the people” and with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, that is, with God (v. 38; cf. Exod. 20:1)—he stood between God and the people. The Sanhedrin, of course, would not have accepted, or even seen, the typology, but they would have readily agreed that Moses was the mediator of the living words, that is, the law, seen as the way to life (v. 38; cf. Exod. 19:1–6; 20:1–17). As far as the Sanhedrin was concerned, this was Stephen’s most telling point. Herein lay Moses’ greatness.
7:39–41 And yet, for all his greatness, neither Moses himself nor the law that he had mediated was obeyed (v. 39; cf. v. 53; Exod. 16:3; Num. 11:4f.). The details of the exodus story were well known, and Stephen had no need to rehearse them. It was sufficient for his purpose simply to highlight those features of the story that showed that the Israelites were a contentious people. Thus in the desert to which God had brought them, they turned against him (cf. Exod. 6:11). In their hearts they turned back to Egypt (v. 39; cf. Exod. 16:3; Num. 11:4f.), for they were hankering after the worship of idols. Indeed, no sooner had Moses gone up on the mountain than they lapsed into idolatry. They asked Aaron to make them other gods at the very time that Moses was on the mountain receiving the law. The people complained that they did not know what had happened to Moses, and in his place they wanted gods that they could see. Notice that there was no recognition of the true God. As far as they were concerned, it was simply Moses who had brought them out of Egypt (v. 40), and in his absence and their own blindness, they made an idol in the form of a calf and brought sacrifices to it (v. 41; cf. Exod. 32:2–6; 1 Kings 12:28). The Scripture speaks of the handiwork of God, in which people should rejoice; these people had a feast in honor of their own (v. 41).
7:42–43 From that first act of idolatry it was but a short step to the wholesale adoption of other religions, a sin that in one sense was of their own doing (cf. Eph. 4:19, “they have given themselves over to sensuality”), but in another sense it was an act of divine retribution: God turned away (or possibly, “God turned them back”) and gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies (lit. “to the army,” i.e., the sun, moon and stars; v. 42). They turned away from the creator, “the Lord of hosts,” and were doomed to worship the creature, “the host of heaven”—a picture of spiritual decline found also in Romans 1:18ff. (cf. Josh. 24:20; Isa. 63:10). The sun and the moon and the stars were believed to be either gods or their habitation. The Old Testament has many references to the worship of the stellar deities (cf. Deut. 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3; etc.).
In support of this view of Israel’s history, Stephen cited Amos 5:25–27 from the book of the prophets (apparently a single scroll containing the Twelve Minor Prophets). As we have it, the quotation follows the text of the LXX with little variation, retaining the question of verse 25, “Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings …?” (v. 42), which in the Greek expects a negative reply. The Hebrew text of Amos is less specific, but is usually understood in the same way. But the prophet cannot have meant that no sacrifices were offered for forty years in the desert (v. 42). This would have been in direct contradiction with such passages as Exodus 24:4f. and Numbers 7:10ff. What he probably meant was that not merely were sacrifices offered but the worship of the people was then from the heart. He saw those years in the desert as a golden age from which the empty ritual of his own day was a far cry. But Stephen, with his very different presuppositions, found another meaning in Amos’ words. As he understood it, the prophet was complaining that though much was done in those desert years that passed for worship, it was not of the heart, and so not what it purported to be. For Stephen, the question of verse 42 was answered by the following verse. It was not God whom they worshiped, but Molech and Rephan (so the LXX). Historically, of course, this may not have been so (though the possibility of such worship was recognized; cf. Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5), but what Stephen meant was that, having already turned away from God in their hearts, in effect they had turned “the tabernacle of the Testimony” (v. 44) into the shrine of Molech (v. 43). Ultimately, Israel’s persistence in this rebellion had brought upon them God’s judgment, and they were driven into exile beyond Babylon (v. 45; cf. 2 Kings 24:10–17). At this point Stephen left behind him both the LXX and the Hebrew texts. They speak of “Damascus,” for Amos had the Assyrians in view. But the Babylonian exile meant more to Stephen’s hearers than the Assyrian deportation, and so he made the change.
7:44–46 From describing their worship, Stephen came by a natural progression to speak of their place of worship, but here again Israel’s propensity for rebellion was shown. The first sanctuary had been the tabernacle of the Testimony (v. 44), which is how the LXX (incorrectly) translates the Hebrew “Tent of Meeting” (Exod. 27:21), though the name was not inappropriate. This tent had been sanctioned by God, made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen (v. 44; cf. Exod. 25:9, 40; 26:30; 27:8), and in all the years that had followed, through the conquest of Canaan, until the time of David (v. 45), it had proved adequate to the needs of Israel’s worship. But David, uneasy that he lived in a house made of cedar while the ark of God was kept in a tent (2 Sam. 7:2), asked that he might be allowed to provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob (v. 46)—this language echoes Psalm 132:4f. This was not to be, but the prophet who brought him this message brought him also another: God would establish David’s “house,” that is, he would give him descendants, and his son would build God a house (2 Sam. 7:11–13, RSV). It would appear that for Stephen this promise was fulfilled, not in the building of the temple, but in the coming of Christ.
7:47–50 Nevertheless, the temple was built (v. 47). The clue to Stephen’s understanding of this development lies in the conjunctions of these verses (NIV but). The first (Gk. de), taken alone, is ambiguous. It could be adversative, setting the statement of verse 47 over against that of the previous verse, or it could be simply transitional, marking the change of subject from David to Solomon. The second, however, is strongly adversative (Gk. alla), clearly opposing verses 47 and 48. But verse 48 appears to furnish the reason why David did not build “a dwelling place for the God of Jacob,” in which case we must understand the conjunction of verse 47 to be also adversative. In short, as far as Stephen was concerned, the temple was built contrary to God’s purpose. Solomon had “built him a house” (v. 47), but the Most High God does not live in houses made by men (v. 48), literally, “made with hands.” This was a word commonly used by Greek philosophers and Jews alike in their condemnation of idolatry (see, e.g., Lev. 26:1; Isa. 46:6; Sibylline Oracles 3:650f.; 4.8–12; Philo, Life of Moses 1.303; 2. 165 and 168; cf. v. 41; 17:24; Heb. 9:11, 24). Was Stephen calling the temple an idol? The Old Testament gives a far different picture than this of the temple and the circumstances in which it was built.
The operative word in this verse is “live.” Stephen may well have agreed that God could be found in the temple, but this word would suggest that he was confined there, and as Stephen had maintained throughout, that was simply not so. Had not God been found in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in the desert? The Alexandrian philosophers had been developing the doctrine of the divine nature, and from them, perhaps, Stephen had learned how absurd it was to suppose that the creator could be confined with walls. But this truth had already been revealed in Scripture. Solomon himself had recognized it in his dedicatory prayer (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron. 6:18; cf. also 2 Chron. 29:10–19), so too had the prophet, with reference perhaps to the building of the second temple after the exile (v. 48; Isa. 66:1f.; cf. John 4:21; Acts 17:22ff.). The passage cited is one of the few in the Old Testament that seems to denounce the temple root and branch. The text of the LXX is used with only a few minor changes.
The position to which Stephen had come in these verses went far beyond any other that we find in the New Testament. Elsewhere we meet with the idea of the temple’s role being now fulfilled by Christ and, therefore, of the temple’s redundancy, but nowhere such an outright condemnation of the temple as such. M. Simon has suggested that to Stephen the temple meant from the beginning “a falling away from the authentic tradition of Israel” as God had inspired and directed it, so that Israel’s was “a debased and corrupt form of religion” (p. 45), especially now that One greater than the temple had come (Matt. 12:6). Not only was the temple unnecessary, but it had become another instance of the people’s perversity. The two themes of Stephen’s counterattack thus met and mingled. Some have seen in Stephen’s opposition to the temple evidence of “Samaritanism,” but this is not a necessary conclusion. He could have been influenced by a number of other sects (see note on v. 46) or have arrived quite independently at this position.
7:51–53 These verses have sometimes been explained as Stephen’s response to the increasing impatience of his audience, as if he felt that the angry murmurs of the council would allow him no more time for speaking. There may be something in this, though it could be maintained equally as well that the whole speech had been leading up to this conclusion and that these verses, far from being an interruption to the steady development of his argument, are its most fitting conclusion. At all events, the speech ends with a bitter and abrupt declaration of Israel’s rebellion, expressed in a collection of Old Testament phrases. They were a stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears (they had not cut away their sin, i.e., repented and believed)—words that had often been spoken before in reference to Israel (cf. Exod. 33:3, 5; 34:9; Lev. 26:41; Deut. 9:6; 10:16; Jer. 4:4; 6:10; also Rom. 2:25, 29)—who in the past had resisted the Holy Spirit (cf. Num. 27:14; Isa. 63:10) and were still deaf to God’s message (v. 51). Their fathers had killed God’s messengers, the prophets (cf. 1 Kings 19:10, 14; Neh. 9:26; Jer. 26:20) who had spoken beforehand of the Righteous One who would come, and when he had come, they had completed their fathers’ work by killing him too (v. 52). The reference is, of course, to Jesus and apparently to his role as the Suffering Servant (cf. esp. Isa. 53:11, RSV; see disc. on 3:13 and notes on 8:32f.).
This spirit of rebellion, which had reached its nadir in their treatment of Jesus, was evident also in their response to the law. There was a tradition, to which Stephen referred, that the angels had been involved in the transmission of the law (cf. LXX Deut. 33:2; Jubilees 1:27ff.; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2), though precisely what Stephen meant by this reference is not clear. The Greek could be taken in the sense either that the Israelites had received the law “as the angels had appointed that they should,” or that they had received it “as the ordinance of the angels.” In any case, Stephen’s intention was to enhance the dignity of the law. The law had come with notable sanctions, yet they had not obeyed it. No proof of this statement is given. Stephen had passed the point where he could carefully argue the case. But at the back of his mind there may have been their specific breach of the law in their treatment of Jesus (cf. Exod. 20:13). Hence his use of the word “murderer” (v. 52; in the Greek it is a noun, not a verb). It was they who were the lawbreakers, not he.
Additional Notes
7:43 You have lifted up the shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan: so LXX Amos 5:26, which differs from the Hebrew in having “tent” for “Sikkuth” and “of Moloch” for “your king” (Heb. malekkekem). The translators of the LXX may have had another reading, milekkōm (cf. 2 Kings 23:13) or believed that they were interpreting the Hebrew. Sikkuth was a Babylonian deity, Molech, an Ammonite (1 Kings 11:7), whose worship seems to have been associated with the sacrifice of children in the fire (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35; cf. 2 Kings 17:31). In addition, the LXX has “the star of your god Raiphan” for “Chiun your images, the star of your god.” Probably the LXX read, not the word “Chiun” but “Kewan,” of which Raiphan is a corruption through Kaiphan. Kewan was an Assyrian name for the planet Saturn, which explains “the star of your god.”
7:45 Joshua: In Greek, the name is identical with “Jesus.” From the Epistle of Barnabas (12.8) onwards, many early Christian writers regarded Joshua as a type of Jesus (cf. Heb. 4:8). Hanson wonders whether Stephen intended to link the two, giving to the words they took the land from the nations the sense he “gained possession of the Gentiles,” with a double reference to both Joshua and Jesus (p. 101).
7:46 It has sometimes been suggested that Stephen was a Samaritan (see, e.g., J. Munck, p. 285; and C. H. H. Scobie, “The Origin and Development of Samaritan Christianity,” NTS 19 (1972–73), pp. 391–400), and certainly there are points of contact in this speech with the Samaritans (see disc. on vv. 4, 16, 32, 37, 47–50). But in the light of that people’s bitter opposition to Judah and to the house of David, the tone of Stephen’s comment in this verse must rule out any suggestion that he was himself a Samaritan (see M. H. Scharlemann, Stephen: A Singular Saint). There were a number of other Jewish sects having affinities with the Samaritans that could equally as well have influenced Stephen, whether directly or indirectly (see M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, pp. 48ff.).