Conclusion

Chapter Five

The end of an era: the temple system and its leaders

So far we have seen that the inauguration of the kingdom of God provides cohesion to the emphases in Acts on the plan of God, the resurrection and reign of the Davidic King Jesus, the fulfilment of God’s saving promises in the restoration of God’s people, and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. The introduction of this ‘new era’ of ‘last days’ fulfilment, however, also has implications for the ‘old era’. We will see in this chapter that the ramifications of the Davidic kingship of Jesus and the arrival of the last days for the temple and temple authorities are especially highlighted in Acts 3 – 7. In the following chapter we will see that the role of the law as the authority for God’s people has also undergone some change in Acts. Simply put, the book of Acts highlights the end of the old temple system and law and the inauguration of a new ‘authority structure’ in the inaugurated kingdom of God by virtue of Jesus’ lordship and the authority of his ‘authorized delegates’, the apostles. An outline of how we will proceed in the rest of this chapter will be provided following a summary of some of the debate concerning the role of the temple in Acts.

The debate about the temple in Acts

Luke’s interest in the temple is evident in the number of references he makes to the temple and in the strategic locations in the narrative of both Luke and Acts in which there is a focus on activity in the temple. Debate has arisen in part because of two apparently conflicting types of evidence in the text of Acts. First, the early believers appear to continue to be active in the temple even though NT teaching elsewhere points to the end of the temple as a place of sacrifice and God’s dwelling. Secondly, there is debate over whether or not Stephen’s speech criticizes the temple in the suggestion that David, rather than Solomon, found favour with God, the temple was a house ‘made by men’ (i.e. and not by God), and the declaration that the Most High does not dwell in such houses (Acts 7:46–50).

Although there are variations among the following views, some suggested solutions to this difficulty include the following three. First, some argue that Luke is inconsistent. This is stated in stark form by Barrett, who concludes:

There are passages in Acts that assume the Jewish Christians will naturally continue to use the Temple as they did in their pre-Christian lives. Not only is the Temple a proper place in which to meet for religious discourse and for prayer, the old sacrificial system continues in use, and that even by Paul . . . There are also passages, or at least there is a passage, in which the most radical of all views is maintained. The Temple ought never to have existed at all. God did not intend it, and made the matter clear through his prophets.

Secondly, some see Luke as essentially positive towards the temple. The difference between this view and the previous one is primarily that Stephen’s speech is viewed more positively. According to Sylva, Stephen may be emphasizing the transcendence of God in Acts 7:48–50 but is not rejecting the temple. According to some, although Luke may be criticizing the Jewish leaders in Acts 3 – 5, this does not amount to a criticism of the temple itself. Thus, J. Bradley Chance argues that ‘Luke wants his readers to see that in the literal Jerusalem and at the literal temple, God fulfils his promises of salvation to Israel.’

Thirdly, some resolve the difficulty in terms of the disciples’ still coming to terms with the changes brought about by Christ. According to this view, accounts of temple activity among the early Christians are to be expected as they gradually work out the implications of Christ’s death for the temple system.

In this chapter I will argue that, although Luke does not criticize the actual building of the temple by Solomon, he views the role of the Jerusalem temple as having come to an end and its ultimate purpose is now found in the risen Lord Jesus, who not only replaces the temple but provides more for God’s people than even the temple was able to provide. The two broad sections of (1) the temple activity in Acts 3 – 5 and (2) the account of Stephen’s speech in Acts 6 – 7 are meant to be read together, and both sections are consistent in pointing beyond the temple to Jesus. Thus, in contrast to the three views above, Luke’s view of the temple is consistent, he points to its fulfilment and replacement in Jesus, and this view is also expressed by the earliest sermons of the apostles in Acts 3 – 5. We will especially focus on Acts 3 – 7 because these chapters particularly highlight the temple. The rest of this chapter will proceed under three broad headings. First, under the heading ‘The Davidic King, the last days and the temple (Acts 1 – 3)’, we will see that the context of Acts 1 – 2 and the narrative links between Acts 2 and 3 prepare the reader for a focus on the temple in the chapters following Acts 2. Secondly, under the heading ‘The temple, temple leadership and Jesus’ universal authority (Acts 3 – 5)’, we will focus on Acts 3 – 5 and observe that these chapters form one narrative unit which develops the implications of Acts 1 – 2, and that this narrative unit highlights the replacement of both the temple and the temple leadership. Thirdly, under the heading ‘Stephen, the temple and Jesus (Acts 6 – 7)’, we will see that Acts 6 – 7 continues the themes developed in Acts 3 – 5 and brings them to a dramatic conclusion as Stephen points to Christ.

The Davidic King, the last days and the temple (Acts 1 – 3)

In this first main section we will see that, in drawing attention to both the Davidic kingship of Jesus and the arrival of the last days in Acts 2, and in deliberately linking the beginning of Acts 3 with the end of Acts 2, Luke is preparing his readers for why he will focus on the temple in Acts 3 – 7. That is, Acts 3 – 7 is meant to be read in the light of Acts 1 – 2.

The account of David’s rise to the throne in 2 Samuel demonstrates that the temple and the Davidic covenant have been associated from the very beginning. It was, after all, the play on words between ‘temple’ and ‘dynasty’ in the term ‘house’ that gave rise to the promise that the Lord himself would establish the Davidic dynasty and a descendant of David would ‘build a house for my Name’, and therefore the Lord will ‘establish the throne of his kingdom for ever’ (2 Sam. 7:13). Solomon refers to this promise to David in his declaration of praise to the Lord following the filling of the temple with the glory of the Lord (1 Kgs 8:10–21). Furthermore, the hope for a restored temple was also central to the prophetic hope for a restored people of God under the rule of a future Davidic King. In Ezekiel 37 (a chapter already significant for Acts 2 in its discussion of the resurrection, God’s Spirit and the restoration of ‘all the house of Israel’ under one king) the Lord promises a time when a new David will be king over God’s people and says, ‘I will put my sanctuary among them for ever. My dwelling-place will be with them . . . Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them for ever’ (Ezek. 37:26–28).

As we have seen, Acts 1 – 2 particularly highlights the reign of the Davidic King Jesus in the inaugurated kingdom of God. Peter declares that the promise to David concerning the enthronement of one of his descendants has been fulfilled in the resurrection and exaltation of the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:30–33) and that Jesus is in fact David’s Lord who reigns at the right hand of God (Acts 2:34–36). So already the strong Davidic emphasis in Acts 2, together with the biblical association between the Davidic King and the temple, prepares readers of Acts for the issue of the temple to be addressed.

Furthermore, expectations concerning the temple were associated more broadly with the arrival of the ‘last days’. In Acts 2 the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is evidence for the reign of the Davidic King Jesus as Lord, and therefore the arrival of the last days. We have already noted that the phrase ‘in the last days’, which Peter adds to his citation from Joel (Acts 2:17), reflects the identical phrase from Isaiah 2. It should also be noted that Isaiah goes on to say that

In the last days

the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established

as chief among the mountains;

it will be raised above the hills,

and all nations will stream to it.

In the light of the biblical association between the Davidic King and the temple and between the ‘last days’ and the temple it is not surprising therefore that, following the announcement of the arrival of the ‘last days’ with the exaltation of Jesus to the throne of David in Acts 2, Luke then deals with the subject of the temple in the chapters that immediately follow.

That Luke intends Acts 3 – 7 to develop the expectations raised in Acts 1 – 2 is seen in the way Acts 3 begins by focusing on a specific example of what is found in his summary description of the restored ‘last days’ community in 2:42–47. Following references in 2:42–47 to signs being done through the apostles, the believers being devoted to prayers, and meeting daily in the temple, in Acts 3:1–2 Luke focuses on one sign accomplished through two apostles, at a particular time of prayer and at a specific temple site where a particular person is placed daily. Thus it seems clear that Luke is being selective. He is highlighting a particular activity designed to be read in the light of the events of Acts 1 – 2, which flows directly out of his summary at the end of chapter 2.

Furthermore, as indicated above, the miracle that is the focus of events in Acts 3:1 – 4:22 is called a ‘sign’ in 4:16 and 4:22, and this is the only specific event called a ‘sign’ in Acts. Why is this particular ‘sign’ recounted in this narrative context? Furthermore, as a ‘sign’, what is this event ‘pointing to’ in this narrative context? In the next section we will see that Luke has selected this event to authenticate the apostolic preaching of Jesus as the fulfilment of all of God’s promises, the means of receiving all of God’s blessings, and therefore that Jesus is the one in whom believers find all they need. In doing this, the event in its narrative context also highlights the end of the old temple system and its authorities. We must now turn therefore to the narrative unit itself.

The temple, temple leadership and Jesus’ universal authority (Acts 3 – 5)

In this section we will observe that in Acts 3 – 5, as one narrative unit, Luke is focusing on the implications of Acts 1 – 2 for both the temple and the temple leadership, and the foundation for Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 is already being laid here in Acts 3 – 5. That is, Luke is not here just offering a critique of the Jewish leadership; he is developing his argument that both temple and leadership have come to an end.

As Spencer helpfully observes, the reference to the believers’ ‘daily’ (kath hēmeran) meeting ‘in the temple’ (en tō hierō) and ‘from house to house’ (kat oikon) in 2:46 is virtually identical to the reference to the proclamation about Jesus ‘every day in the temple and from house to house’ at the conclusion of Acts 5 (pasan te hēmeran en tō hierō kai kat oikon, 5:42). These two references to ‘daily temple and house’ activity then ‘frame’ chapters 3 and 5. Within these two temple-house framing references is a focus on public temple activity in 3:1 – 4:22 and again in 5:12–41, with an ‘interlude’ in-between (4:23 – 5:11) that focuses on the believers. Thus, visually, the structure may be set out as follows:

Temple-house frame (2:46) [‘daily in the temple . . . house to house’]

Temple and temple authorities (3:1 – 4:22)

Interlude: the true people of God and their leaders (4:23 – 5:11)

Temple and temple authorities (5:12–41)

Temple-house frame (5:42) [‘every day in the temple and house to house’]

Although the focus of 3:1 – 4:22 and 5:12–41 is on the temple and temple authorities, the first section begins with more of an emphasis on the temple itself (3:1–26) followed by an emphasis on the temple authorities in particular (4:1–22), whereas the second section (5:12–41) focuses primarily on the temple authorities. Thus, under this broad heading of the temple and temple leadership in Acts 3 – 5, we will focus primarily on these two ‘temple’ sections (3:1 – 4:22 and 5:12–42) in the following subdivisions: first, 3:1–10 (‘Leaping over temple boundaries’); secondly, 3:11–26 (‘The explanation’); thirdly, 4:1–22 (‘The end of the old temple leadership’); and finally, 4:23 – 5:11 and 5:12–42 (‘The leadership of the new Israel’).

Leaping over temple boundaries (Acts 3:1–10)

Activity in the temple

Those who argue that Luke demonstrates a so-called positive view of the temple refer to the activity of the apostles in the temple in 2:46 and 3:1. It is assumed that these are references to participation in the temple sacrifices and rituals because Luke says that Peter and John went up to the temple ‘at the time of prayer – at three in the afternoon’ (3:1). Before we focus on 3:1–10 we should observe, however, what Luke does and does not say about the believers and the temple. Although the ‘time of prayer’ at ‘three in the afternoon’ would have been the time for afternoon sacrifices at the temple, Luke makes no mention of sacrifices in his summary of the activity of the believers in the temple. In 2:46 he merely states that they ‘continued together’ (‘continued to meet together’ NIV) in the temple as well as sharing meals together in their homes, and in 3:1 a particular time is all that is mentioned. It is of course quite possible that they did go and pray in the temple. It should be noted, however, that the only activity Luke records the believers doing in the temple in this context is proclaiming Jesus (4:2; 5:20, 25, 42). Thus it must be acknowledged that to see anything more in Luke’s references to the believers’ activity in the temple courts in Acts 2 – 5 is to read more into Acts than Luke himself has said. It would be more fruitful to examine the narrative itself to see what Luke is emphasizing in this context. In this section we will first examine the account of the miracle in 3:1–10 and observe the hints that this account provides for the significance of the temple in this literary context. Then we will examine Peter’s explanation of this miracle in 3:11–26 in the light of this emphasis on the temple in 3:1–10.

A healing that overcomes temple boundaries

The details in verse 2 of the man being ‘lame from his mother’s womb’ (i.e. from birth), being carried, begging and being placed at the door of the temple all highlight the man’s helplessness. This emphasis on the man’s helplessness, however, further highlights the transformation that will follow. In contrast to the language in verse 2 of crippled, carried, placed and begging, the man ‘leaps’, ‘stands’, ‘walks’, ‘goes into’ and again ‘walks’, ‘leaps’ and ‘praises God’ in verses 8–9. The contrast could not be more dramatic!

Repeated references to the temple, however, surround the healing in verses 4–7:

v. 1

Peter and John were going up into the temple (eis to hieron)

v. 2

The man was carried to the (Beautiful) gate of the temple (pros tēn thyran tou hierou)

v. 2

The man used to beg from those going into the temple (eis to hieron)

v. 3

Peter and John were about to enter into the temple (eis to hieron)

vv. 4–7

The man is healed

v. 8

The man went with them into the temple (syn autois eis to hieron)

v. 10

He used to sit begging at the (Beautiful) gate of the temple (epi tē . . . pylē tou hierou)

References to locations with respect to the temple are particularly emphasized with the use of the prepositions ‘into’ (eis) and ‘to/at’ (pros, epi). Thus the man’s position ‘at the door of the temple’ (v. 2) is stated in contrast to Peter and John and everyone else who are repeatedly said to be going ‘into the temple’ (vv. 1–3). This contrast between the man outside the temple and everyone else going into the temple is again highlighted in the verses following the man’s healing. Not only was the man leaping, standing and walking (i.e. dramatically healed); we are specifically told that he entered ‘with them into the temple’, walking, leaping and praising God (v. 8). The significance of this entry ‘into the temple’ is again highlighted in the concluding statement of this healing account in verse 10, where, in a deliberate recollection of verse 2, we are told that the people recognized him as the one who used to sit ‘at the Beautiful Gate of the temple’.

One of the themes being highlighted here in this man’s healing is this overcoming of the man’s desperate situation and placement outside ‘the gate of the temple’ with the man’s healing leading to his entry ‘into the temple’. Spencer notes that the law’s prohibition of offering lame (and blemished) animals as sacrifices and the prohibition of lame (and disabled) priests in the temple (Lev. 21:16–24; Deut. 15:21; cf. Mal. 1:8, 13) were used to develop the stereotype in Israelite society of the lame as despised creatures (cf. also 2 Sam. 5:6–8; 9:8). Although these original prohibitions related to sacrifices and priests, the repeated references to these contrasting locations with respect to the temple in this context indicate that it is the inadequacy of the temple system together with the overcoming of that old-system inadequacy through Jesus that is being highlighted here. In the wider context of Luke’s Gospel it should also be noted that (1) the lame are often associated with the blind, deaf, lepers and poor as ‘typical social and religious outcasts’ (Luke 7:22; 14:13, 22); (2) Jesus drives out of the temple ‘those who were selling’ and declares that the temple system is not a ‘house of prayer’ but rather a ‘den of robbers’ (Luke 19:45–46); and (3) Jesus condemns the temple leadership as those who ‘devour widows’ houses’ (Luke 20:47 – 21:4). When these broader Lukan themes are kept in mind together with the narrative context that will lead to Stephen’s speech concerning the temple, it seems likely that, as Spencer observes, the repeated references to the temple in this healing account are meant to highlight the lame beggar’s leap over temple boundaries through Jesus.

Walking and leaping and praising God

A further indication as to the significance of this healing is the description of the man’s healing in 3:8–9. Given the emphasis already in Acts 1 – 2 on the fulfilment of the promises in Isaiah concerning the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and the restoration of God’s people as witnesses to the ends of the earth (1:6–8) and the arrival of the ‘last days’ (2:17) with the resurrection and exaltation of the Davidic King (2:30–33), readers of Luke’s Gospel who now read about the lame ‘leaping’ and walking and praising God would be reminded of something else familiar to them from Isaiah. Just as some today might read this account and immediately recall a well-known children’s Sunday school song, it is likely that Luke expects readers of Luke and Acts to be familiar with Isaiah and therefore also to recognize in this description the words of Isaiah 35:3–6. In Luke 7:20–23 Jesus already alluded to Isaiah 35:5–6 when he described his ministry as one in which ‘the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor’ (NIV). In Acts 3:8 the double reference to the lame man ‘leaping’ and walking and praising God recalls the specific wording of Isaiah 35:6, where it is anticipated that in the coming day of salvation and restoration of creation there will be shouting for joy in Zion and ‘the lame’ will ‘leap like a deer’. In the context of Acts 1 – 2, therefore, this account is a further indication, or sign (4:16, 22), of the authenticity of the apostolic message concerning the arrival of the last days with the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus and the promised restoration of all things that will culminate in the return of Christ (3:21). The reason why these temple boundaries are able to be overcome through ‘the name of Jesus’ (3:6), however, is developed further in the apostle Peter’s explanation in the rest of Acts 3.

The explanation: God’s ‘last days’ blessings are found only in Jesus (Acts 3:11–26)

The account of the healing in 3:1–10 has particularly drawn attention to the overcoming of temple boundaries through Jesus. The ‘significance’ of the miracle is then explained by Peter in 3:11–26. In this comprehensive yet compact sermon, Peter explains that Jesus fulfils all of God’s saving promises in Scripture. In this context, therefore, the inadequacy of the temple system is now contrasted with Peter’s message about the all sufficiency of Jesus. Thus there is a shift in focus in 3:11–12 as attention turns away from both the lame man and the apostles Peter and John to the true source of the miracle: the name of Jesus (3:12, 16).

Jesus fulfils all of God’s saving promises found in all of Scripture

Peter employs a particularly rich and varied range of terms to speak of Jesus in such a short amount of space. Jesus is God’s exalted ‘servant’ (vv. 13 and 26), the ‘Holy and Righteous One’ (v. 14), the ‘author of life’ (v. 15), the (suffering) Messiah (vv. 18, 20), the prophet like Moses who must be listened to (vv. 22–23), the Davidic King (v. 24) and the ‘seed of Abraham’ who will bring blessing to Israel first as well as to all nations (vv. 25–26). Thus from verse 13 through to verse 26 Peter refers to Jesus in seven or eight different ways, ranging from the seed of Abraham, to the prophet like Moses, the Davidic Messiah and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. Furthermore, the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant (vv. 25–26), the Davidic covenant (the reference to Samuel in v. 24, the title ‘Christ’ in vv. 18, 20) and the new covenant (‘forgiveness of sins’ and the ‘times of refreshing’ in v. 19 parallel promises of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit in 2:38) are all fulfilled in the Lord Jesus. Peter also draws attention to comprehensive fulfilment here with repeated references to ‘all the prophets’ (vv. 18, 21, 24). Peter is emphasizing the fulfilment of all of God’s purposes anticipated throughout the whole of Scripture in Jesus alone. All that one needs from God is now to be found in Jesus: forgiveness of sins and refreshing (v. 19), restoration (v. 21), God’s final authoritative revelation (vv. 22–23), the blessing of God (vv. 25–26) and repentance (v. 26).

The ‘name’ of Jesus

This emphasis on the fulfilment of all of God’s blessings in the person of Jesus is particularly brought out in 3:16, which draws attention to ‘the name’ of Jesus (developing the point raised by Peter in 3:6). A rather wooden translation of this grammatically complex sentence reads, ‘by faith in his name this man . . . was made strong, his name, and the faith through him gave him this wholeness. . .’ The general structure of the verse (‘faith . . . his name . . . his name . . . faith’) highlights the centrality of ‘the name’ of Jesus.

In this context this reference to ‘the name’ as the means of bringing about this ‘wholeness’ is reminiscent of references in the OT to ‘the name’ of Yahweh as the means by which God’s people were delivered. The ‘name’ of Yahweh was especially associated with the temple of Solomon, where it was used with reference to the presence of God among his people. In 1 Kings 8:17–20 Solomon praised the Lord before the people of Israel saying:

My father David had it in his heart to build a temple for the Name of the Lord, the God of Israel. But the Lord said to my father David, ‘Because it was in your heart to build a temple for my Name, you did well to have this in your heart. Nevertheless, you are not the one to build the temple, but your son, who is your own flesh and blood – he is the one who will build the temple for my Name.’ The Lord has kept the promise he made: I have succeeded David my father and now I sit on the throne of Israel, just as the Lord promised, and I have built the temple for the Name of the Lord, the God of Israel.

Then, in Solomon’s prayer of dedication, he asks in 8:29–30 that the eyes of the Lord

be open toward this temple night and day, this place of which you said, ‘My Name shall be there,’ so that you will hear the prayer your servant prays toward this place. Hear the supplication of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place. Hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and when you hear, forgive.

For Solomon ‘the name’ was the active presence of Yahweh (in the fullness of his character), the God who would keep his promises to David, forgive and restore Israel. Solomon himself recognized, however, that even the temple could not ultimately serve as a dwelling that could contain God. Now, in Solomon’s (!) Colonnade (3:11) of the (second) temple, Peter declares that it is the ‘name’ of the exalted Jesus, who sits on David’s throne as the Lord in fulfilment of God’s promises (to David), who must be called upon, who answers prayer and who brings forgiveness, wholeness and the restoration hoped for by Solomon and anticipated by the prophets. In this context the temple and its now corrupt system contributed to the exclusion of the lame man. Now all that the temple pointed to may be found perfectly in ‘the name of Jesus’.

The ‘name of Jesus’, therefore, is perhaps best understood in this context not simply as ‘Jesus’ nor even the titles ‘Lord and Christ’ (though it is of course not less than any of these) but the active presence of Jesus in the fullness of his character as the means of receiving God’s blessings. This ‘fullness of character as the means of God’s blessing’ is what Peter highlights when he emphasizes that Jesus is the fulfilment of everything from the seed of Abraham to the suffering and exalted Servant of Isaiah.

It is in this light that we may understand why Luke has drawn attention to ‘leaping over temple boundaries’ in the miracle recounted in 3:1–10. It was a ‘sign’ authenticating the apostolic message that God’s promised restoration of the last days is found only in the exalted Lord Jesus. As Franklin correctly observes, ‘The miracle in the temple points to the fulfilment of its life in Jesus so that now the “name” of Jesus brings that salvation to which the manifestation of the divine name in the Temple had been a pointer.’ In 4:1–22 Luke highlights the ramifications of the authority of the name of Jesus for the authority of the temple leadership.

The end of the old temple leadership (Acts 4:1–22)

If the ‘name’ of Jesus was the turning point in the account of the miracle (3:6) and the focal point in Peter’s explanation (3:16), it rises to be the dominant point in this section as references to ‘the name’ of Jesus occur in 4:7, 10, 12, 17–18. This emphasis on ‘the name of Jesus’, however, comes in the context of claims for authority from the temple leadership.

The temple authorities

The immediate focus of attention in Acts 4 becomes clear in verses 1, 5–6. The chapter begins with reference to the ‘priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees’ (v. 1), all of whom are closely aligned with the temple system and have a vested interest in the operations of the temple. After recounting the imprisonment of Peter and John and the unstoppable spread of the word despite the efforts of these leaders (vv. 1–4), Luke focuses again on the rulers of the people with a full description in verses 5–6: ‘the rulers, elders and teachers of the law . . . Annas the high priest . . . Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest’s family’. These are, as Peter calls them, the ‘rulers . . . of the people’ (4:8) whom Luke later specifies as the ruling council of the Sanhedrin (4:15). The issue of most concern to these ‘rulers’ becomes clear in 4:7 when they ask Peter and John, ‘By what power or what name did you do this?’ The issue being raised in this section then is the current status of the power and authority of the temple leadership.

Jesus’ universal authority

Peter then declares that it is by ‘the name of Jesus Christ’ that this man stands healed. He adds a point, however, that would be sure to disturb these temple authorities in this temple setting and it is applied with special emphasis to this audience. ‘He is the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ The implication here is that Jesus is ‘the cornerstone of the true temple’. In Luke 20:19 Luke specified that when Jesus quoted this same psalm he spoke about the end of the Jewish leadership (20:16). In Acts 4 Peter moves directly to a declaration of Jesus’ universal authority. Salvation is found in him alone, he has universal authority as there is not another name (1) ‘under heaven’ and (2) given among all people (i.e. in contrast to the limited ‘authority’ of these rulers) that brings salvation. Thus Luke highlights the contrast between these Jewish ‘rulers’ and the Lord Jesus, who has universal authority not only over Israel but over all creation.

Overall then, Luke’s account of public temple activity in 3:1 – 4:22 draws attention to the fulfilment of God’s restoration purposes in ‘the name of Jesus’. The Lord Jesus culminates the hopes of Scripture and the promises of God from Abraham to Moses, David, Isaiah and ‘all the prophets’. His reign as the Lord who sends the Holy Spirit and in whom forgiveness is found (Acts 1 – 2) means that believers find all they need in him. There is now no need for the old temple system and its leadership, as both have come to an end for the true people of God. The following sections (the ‘interlude’ in 4:23 – 5:11 and the return to public temple activity in 5:12–42) especially develop the role of the apostles as leaders of the new people of God.

The leadership of the new Israel (Acts 4:23 – 5:11; 5:12–42)

In 4:23 – 5:11 the focus shifts as Peter and John return to ‘their own people’ (4:23). The gathering of believers is a place of prayer (4:24–31), generosity (4:32–37) and the holy presence of God’s Spirit (5:1–11). Furthermore, following the citation of Psalm 2 in their prayer in 4:24–30, the believers associate the Jewish leaders who are opposing the apostles with those who oppose God and his anointed one, the Lord Jesus, and they associate the suffering apostles with the Lord’s Suffering Servant, the Lord Jesus. Believers in Jesus, therefore, are seen here as the true people of God, and the suffering apostles, as representatives of the Lord Jesus, are the true leaders of God’s people.

The leadership of the apostles over the Christian community is then illustrated in the summary passage of 4:32–37 and the incident with Ananias and Sapphira in 5:1–11. Although the voluntary and occasional nature of the giving continues (4:34–35; 5:4), an emphasis on the role of the apostles in the sharing of possessions is added to this picture as the placement of money at the apostles’ feet is mentioned three times (4:35, 37; 5:2). Following the judgment on Ananias and Sapphira for their lie to the Holy Spirit (5:1–11), the third summary passage in these early chapters of Acts focuses especially on the public activity of the apostles (5:12, 15–16). This then leads into another clash with the temple hierarchy in 5:17–42.

The temple authorities

Although the focus returns again to the temple in 5:17–42 (5:20–21, 24–25), in this context, following the emphasis on the leadership of the apostles over the new people of God in 4:23 – 5:11, the focus in 5:17–42 is more specifically on the apostles as the leaders of the true people of God in contrast to the temple leadership. In 5:17–24 (as with 4:1–22) the authority of the temple leadership is again noted. In 5:17, 21, 24 full descriptions of the leadership are given: ‘the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees’ (v. 17), ‘the high priest and his associates . . . the Sanhedrin – the full assembly of the elders of Israel’ (v. 21) and ‘the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests’ (v. 24). The rising intensity of their opposition is seen in the move from ‘threats’ (4:21) to imprisonment (5:18) to flogging and wanting to put them to death (5:33, 41). This increasing hostility is also highlighted in the move from the arrest of just Peter and John (4:7) to the arrest of the apostles as a group (5:18, 21). Nevertheless, the inability of this ‘full assembly of the elders of Israel’ to put a stop to the apostles is evident again in the apostles’ rescue from prison and the confusion of the leaders in the face of a securely locked, well-guarded, but empty, jail (vv. 23–24)!

The teaching of the apostles

The opposition of the temple authorities to God is now emphatically contrasted with ‘the apostles’ (cf. vv. 18, 29, 40) or, more specifically, the teaching of the apostles. Thus the purpose of the apostles’ miraculous release from prison is so that they will go to the temple and ‘tell the people the full message of this new life’ (5:19–20). Early the next morning the apostles enter the temple and ‘they began to teach’ (5:21). In 5:25 news comes to the temple leadership that the apostles are ‘in the temple courts teaching the people’. In 5:28 the high priest declares that they were charged not ‘to teach in this name’ and yet the apostles have ‘filled Jerusalem’ with their ‘teaching’. The final verse in this section declares that every day they never stopped ‘teaching and preaching the good news that the Messiah is Jesus’ (5:42). The apostles’ teaching is again (cf. 4:19–20) stated to be in obedience to God (5:29–32). In this context, given the example of apostolic preaching in 3:11–26 and the more succinct summaries in 4:8–12 and 5:29–32, it is likely that the emphasis on the ‘teaching’ of the apostles is the teaching that all of God’s blessings (repentance, forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, restoration) are now to be found only in the name of Jesus. Thus the statement of Gamaliel (a ‘teacher of the law’, 5:34) that if this plan is of God ‘you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God’ (5:39) becomes a commentary on the unstoppable apostolic proclamation in this section of the Lord Jesus as the only means of receiving God’s blessings.

In summary: Acts 3 – 5 develops the implications of Acts 1 – 2 for the old temple system and leadership in the last days. The arrival of the last days with the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus (Acts 1 – 2) means that the temple system and leadership of the old era have come to an end (Acts 3 – 5). The fulfilment of all of God’s promises of blessing in the name of Jesus points to the end of the inadequate temple system (esp. 3:1–26), and the universal authority of Jesus points to the end of the Jewish leadership (4:1– 22). As Jesus’ authorized delegates, the apostles are the new leaders over the true people of God (4:23 – 5:42). More specifically, the apostolic teaching that Jesus has fulfilled all of God’s saving promises, including all that the temple pointed to, should be followed rather than the teaching of the temple leadership. The foundation is now laid for Stephen’s sermon as the climax of Acts 3 – 7.

Stephen, the temple and Jesus (Acts 6 – 7)

Although Acts 5:42 forms an inclusio with 2:46 and helps to highlight the temple focus of chapters 3 – 5, that temple focus is intensified dramatically in chapters 6 and 7. Acts 6:1–7 then is best viewed as a transition passage that leads into the following section. It continues the previous development of the leadership of the apostles over the new people of God. It also introduces Stephen, whose speech is the central feature of Acts 6:8 – 7:60. The account of Stephen’s speech and death then culminates two main themes which have been running throughout Acts 3 – 5: (1) Stephen’s death brings to a climax the opposition that has been intensifying throughout Acts 3 – 5. Thus opposition has moved from threats to Peter and John (4:21) to the arrest and imprisonment of all the apostles (5:18), to flogging as well as desires to put all the apostles to death (5:33, 40), and now to the first death of a Christian for his proclamation of the Lord Jesus (7:59–60). Despite this opposition, however, the message about the Lord Jesus has continued to spread (4:4; 5:20, 28, 39, 42). (2) Stephen’s speech focuses primarily on the significance of the temple and concludes by directing attention to the reigning Lord Jesus.

In addition to culminating themes that have run throughout Acts 3 – 5, Acts 6 – 7 is also crucial for the developments that follow: (1) Stephen’s death is associated with the persecution that leads to this spread of the gospel outside Jerusalem (8:1; 11:19). (2) The theological view expressed in Stephen’s speech (developed below) concerning the relativization and replacement of the temple in Jesus (and God’s involvement outside the temple and the land of Israel) prepares the way for the spread of the gospel outside Jerusalem and the inclusion of Samaritans and outcasts. Thus, rather than place a significant break in the narrative at Acts 6:7 (as in the outlines of Acts that follow the exact location of the summary statements), it is better to see the summary statement of the spread of the word (6:7) as located in the midst of this transition that leads to the climax of Acts 3 – 7 and a new section that begins in Acts 8. The importance of Acts 7 as a transitional chapter may be illustrated in the following diagram:

Acts 3 – 5

(1) Gospel spreads despite rising opposition

Acts 8 →

(1) Gospel spreads beyond Jerusalem

(2) God’s blessing is found in Jesus, not

(2) Samaritans and outcasts included in the temple

Acts 7

(1) Stephen’s death

The charges against Stephen

The charges brought against Stephen are particularly important for understanding the significance of his speech. These charges are repeated with slight variations in three pairs (6:11, 13, 14). In 6:11 Stephen is charged with ‘blasphemy against Moses and against God’. In verse 13 the charge is that he never stops speaking ‘against this holy place and against the law’, and then in support of that charge they accuse Stephen of saying that ‘Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us’ (6:14). The repetition here indicates that the two charges in 6:11 of blasphemy against Moses and against God are further developed in 6:13–14 such that ‘to speak blasphemous words against Moses is to speak against the law and the customs handed down from Moses. To speak blasphemous words against God is to speak against the temple (“this holy place”; v. 13).’

Stephen’s response

A major theme of Stephen’s speech, therefore, is his response to the charges that he is against the law of Moses and the temple, God’s dwelling place (‘this holy place’, 6:13). Regarding Stephen’s attitude to the temple in his speech, Stephen is often viewed as either critical of the actual original building of the temple in the first place, or as critical only of the limitation of God to the temple (rather than critical of the temple itself). It should be noted that Luke twice indicates that these charges are not true. In 6:11 Luke notes that the opposition to Stephen ‘secretly persuaded some men’ to make these accusations, and then in verse 13 Luke states that they are ‘false witnesses’ and hence are bringing false charges. According to Luke, therefore, Stephen is neither blaspheming the law (Moses) nor the temple (God). Thus the following narrative as an account of Stephen’s response to these charges indicates that the second view mentioned above has more in its favour. However, this does not mean that Stephen must then be viewed as offering unqualified endorsement of the temple (or the law) in its current form. The narrative flow of Stephen’s speech indicates that he is doing more than making an abstract point about God’s omnipresence. Not only is he relativizing the temple, but he is also pointing beyond the temple to Jesus, the One who supersedes the temple. This is seen first in the way he shows that he is not against Moses by proclaiming the one Moses pointed to, and secondly in the way his references to the presence of God throughout his speech culminate in Jesus.

Moses and Jesus

After the high priest’s brief question ‘Are these charges true?’ (his only contribution to this discussion!), Stephen launches into an extended discourse, the longest in Acts, providing a history of Israel with an emphasis on certain patterns in God’s plan. Stephen’s history of Israel focuses on the characters of Abraham (vv. 2–8), Joseph (vv. 9–16), Moses (vv. 17–44), Joshua (v. 45), David (vv. 45–46) and Solomon (v. 47). For obvious reasons Stephen’s section on Moses is the longest, with three forty-year blocks (vv. 23, 30, 36).

A recurring theme that runs through Stephen’s speech is the continued rejection of God’s messengers. This is particularly emphasized in regard to Moses, as the rejection of Moses is highlighted three times (7:27, 35, 39). That allusions are being made to Jesus here is indicated most clearly in Stephen’s clarification that ‘this is that Moses who told the Israelites, “God will send you a prophet like me from your own people” ’ (v. 37). Within the narrative of Acts in this context, however, there are also other indications that we are meant to read Stephen’s account of Moses in the light of the one Moses pointed to. The terminology of Moses as ‘ruler and redeemer’ (archonta kai lytrōtēn, v. 35) reflects the language of Peter that the exalted Jesus is ‘Ruler and Saviour’ (archēgon kai sōtēra, 5:31) and the ‘denial’ (or ‘rejection’) of Moses (7:35) is also the same terminology that has been used of the Israelites’ ‘denial’ (or ‘rejection’) of Jesus, ‘the Holy and Righteous One’ (arneomai, ‘deny/reject’, is used in 3:13–14 and 7:35). Thus when Stephen reaches his conclusion in verses 51–53 and turns with intensity to a series of second-person plural pronouns to offer prophet-like judgments concerning his audience, he is only making more explicit what he has developed throughout his speech. In murdering ‘the Righteous One’ they are continuing this pattern of opposition to God’s purposes and messengers, ‘like fathers, like sons’. In rejecting Jesus, therefore, it is Stephen’s accusers, rather than Stephen, who are the ones guilty of being ‘against Moses’. They have rejected the one to whom Moses and the law pointed.

The rage of Stephen’s accusers in 7:54 proves Stephen’s point and thus they continue the pattern of their reaction to Jesus and ‘their fathers’ treatment of the prophets. In contrast to their angry rage Stephen utters two dying prayers (vv. 59–60) that mark him out as a follower of Jesus. First Stephen commits his spirit to the Lord Jesus (as Jesus committed his to the Father in Luke 23:46). Secondly, he ‘yells’ a prayer of forgiveness over the crowd’s ‘yells’ of anger (as Jesus prayed in Luke 23:34). However, Stephen does so as one who now points to Jesus (v. 56) and who prays to Jesus (vv. 59–60), rather than as someone who merely follows the pattern or example of Jesus. Jesus is clearly not just a ‘prophet like Moses’; he is the one who receives prayer and provides forgiveness for sin.

The temple and Jesus

One of the points Stephen makes in his response to the charge that he is against the temple is that God’s presence has never been limited to the temple or even to the land of Israel. Stephen gives a kind of ‘theological geography’ lesson from Israel’s history to his audience. Thus in verse 2, at the very outset of Stephen’s speech, he states that ‘the God of glory’ appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia (God’s glory, of course was regularly associated with the temple). The exodus that leads to worshipping God in ‘this place’ (topos, v. 7) probably refers to Mount Horeb (Exod. 3:12), but the use of the term ‘place’ here is an allusion to the complaint in 6:13 that Stephen speaks against ‘this holy place’ (tou topou tou hagiou). Stephen is drawing attention to God’s presence at Sinai (i.e. God is not limited to a temple). In verse 9 God was with Joseph in Egypt. In verses 30–33 God meets Moses in the flames of the burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai. Once again Stephen quotes the Lord as saying that this ‘place’ is ‘holy ground’ (ho topos . . . gē hagia, 7:33) – another allusion to the charge in 6:13 regarding ‘this holy place’. This time a ‘holy place’ is ‘in the desert’ (7:30). Finally, in verses 48–50 the words of God himself from Isaiah 66:1–2 declare the universal and uncontainable presence of God, who cannot be limited to a house. Stephen declares that God cannot be contained in the temple and therefore also relativizes the temple as the only location for God’s presence.

As Stephen draws his history of Israel to a close in verses 48–50 he appears to charge his audience with turning the temple into an idol. The reference to the Most High not living in ‘handmade’ houses (v. 48) repeats the language used of idolatry in verse 41 as the worship of what their ‘hands had made’. The fact that every occurrence of the term cheiropoiētos (handmade) in the LXX refers to idols especially strengthens the idea that Stephen is charging his audience with idolatry here. Thus Stephen indicates that the idolatry characteristic of Israel’s history of rejecting God is still present in the generation of those who have rejected the Lord Jesus. As Stephen will go on to demonstrate in 7:51–53, his criticism at this point is with the attitudes and responses of the people rather than with the temple itself.

Although it is unlikely that Stephen is criticizing the actual building of the temple, he has relativized the temple as the location for God’s presence as well as declared that God is greater than the temple. However, Stephen also points beyond the temple to Jesus. It is possible that, just as the promise that a descendant of David would be placed on his throne was not ultimately fulfilled in Solomon (Acts 2:29–31), so also Stephen sees the promise that David’s son would build a ‘dwelling place’ for God as ultimately unable to be fulfilled in the temple built by Solomon. It is also important, however, to read Stephen’s final word that tips his accusers over the edge in verses 55–56 in the context of his whole speech. It is Stephen’s claims in verses 55–56 that are the immediate cause of his death and that bring to a climax the rising opposition in Acts 3 – 7. In these verses immediately before Stephen’s accusers block their ears and rush towards him to drag him out and stone him, Luke states that Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit (cf. 6:3, 10), sees ‘the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God’ (vv. 55–56). This reference to the glory of God and the presence of God is a deliberate reference to themes found in Stephen’s speech. The glory of God, which Stephen said had appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia at the very beginning of his speech (v. 2), is now associated with Jesus. Stephen then points (‘Look’) and declares that heaven (the place of God’s throne, v. 49) is open and Jesus is in God’s presence now in a position of power and universal authority in glory as the risen and reigning ‘Son of Man’ (cf. Dan. 7:13). In pointing to Jesus, therefore, Stephen points away from the temple, not just because God is bigger than the temple but because in the kingdom of God, which Jesus inaugurated, Jesus is the one who fulfils the goals of the temple. Just as Stephen’s death brings to a climax the rising opposition of Acts 3 – 7, so his final prayers bring to a climax the focus on the temple in Acts 3 – 7. Not only is Jesus associated with the glory of God, the presence of God and the rule of God (vv. 55–56), but in verses 59–60 Stephen also shows that Jesus is the one who receives prayer (‘Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus . . .” ’), he is the one who brings access to God’s presence (‘receive my spirit’) and he is the one who grants forgiveness of sins (‘do not hold this sin against them’).

As indicated above, Stephen’s ‘theological geography’ prepares the way, in this narrative context, for the spread of God’s word beyond Jerusalem to the nations (as the rest of Acts will develop). In this context in which the fulfilment and replacement of the temple in Jesus are emphasized, it should also be noted that the following two accounts in the narrative of Acts refer to the inclusion of two groups who had difficulties with the temple: Samaritans and eunuchs. As we have already observed in chapter 3, the focus in 8:4–25 is on Samaria as a whole and it recalls OT references to the northern kingdom. This northern kingdom of course set up not only its own rival line of kings, but also its own rival temple and place of worship (Gerazim). It was the hope that the arrival of the long-expected Davidic King would unite the people of God under one king (Ezek. 37:15–24). It is the arrival of Jesus as the object of worship (Luke 24:52), the means of receiving forgiveness (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 7:60) and the place of God’s presence (7:55–56, 59) that unites the worship of Samaria and Judea, north and south, in the kingdom of God (8:12, 14). Furthermore, as we saw in our discussion on pp. 116–118, the focus in Acts 8:26–40 is on the description of the Ethiopian as a ‘eunuch’. This emphasis recalls Deuteronomy 23:1–4 and Isaiah 56:3–8. In Deuteronomy 23 eunuchs are described as those who are excluded from the assembly of the Lord. In Isaiah 56:3–8, however, a day is anticipated when not only will eunuchs be accepted, but they will also have a place in God’s temple, and will have joy in the Lord’s ‘house of prayer’ (56:5, 7). Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, therefore, not only brings to a climax the emphasis on the authority of Jesus in Acts 3 – 5 as the One who replaces both the temple as well as the temple leadership, but also prepares the way for the inclusion of rival northern temple builders, the Samaritans, and excluded temple outcasts such as eunuchs.

Thus Stephen shows that he is not against Moses or the temple because (1) in proclaiming the suffering Lord Jesus, he proclaims the One whom God’s suffering messengers, such as Moses, have always pointed to (and his accusers therefore belong to those who have always been the cause of that suffering and are the ones who are opposed to Moses); and (2) in proclaiming the ascended Lord Jesus as the One with universal authority and the One who is in God’s presence and who provides access to God’s presence, he proclaims the culmination and fulfilment of the various locations for meeting God throughout Israel’s history, including the temple (and his accusers belong to those who have been characterized by the idolatry of false worship in Israel’s history). In this sense then Stephen is not critical of Solomon’s building of the temple, but is also not merely saying that God is greater than the temple either. In response to both charges, Stephen points beyond Moses and the temple to Jesus, the One whom Moses and the temple anticipated.

Conclusion

Luke’s emphasis in Acts 1 – 2 on the enthronement of Jesus as the Davidic King and the arrival of the last days anticipates clarification in Acts 3 – 7 regarding the role of the temple and temple leadership in God’s kingdom under the reign of the Lord Jesus. The focus on the temple in Acts 3 – 7 is therefore deliberately chosen and linked to Acts 2. The flow of the narrative in Acts 3 – 5 and 6 – 7 indicates that both sections are to be seen together, so that there is no ‘positive’ (Acts 3 – 5) versus ‘negative’ (Acts 6 – 7) portrayal of the temple in these chapters; the two sections together provide a consistent portrait. More specifically, Acts 3 – 7 primarily highlights the apostolic proclamation of Jesus as the one with universal authority and therefore as the ‘name’ in whom all of God’s blessings are now received. The Lord Jesus is therefore the fulfilment of and replacement for the temple and the one through whom previous temple boundaries may now be overcome. The inadequacy of the temple is contrasted with the all sufficiency of the Lord Jesus: all of God’s blessings are found through faith in him alone. He is the Lord to whom all, including the temple leadership, must submit. For readers such as Theophilus, therefore, the apostolic proclamation of Jesus as the only means of receiving God’s blessings must be listened to, and believers may be assured that this good news will continue to spread despite the most severe opposition. In the light of this emphasis on apostolic teaching and the leadership of the apostles, the role of the law in this new era has also undergone a change. It is to the role of the law, therefore, that we now turn.

↑ Back to top