The Role of Amos and Isaiah
The two quotations of the prophets act as
commentary on this behaviour of the Israelites. The first quotation (Amos
5.25-27 in Acts 7.42-43) concerns the divine rejection of Israelite idolatry;
its strong introductory formula draws attention to it and indicates that optimal
relevance goes beyond this simple statement. A reader is likely to note three
further implicatures. First, by linking the idolatry of Amos’ day with the
Exodus, an association is made that there has always been idolatry in Israel,
even when it did not seem obvious. This association is made clear in its
opening question, which expects a negative reply: in the Acts setting,
sacrifices were not made to YHWH because they were made to other gods, even
though this meaning is not obvious in Amos. Second, the final phrase (μετοικιῶ
ὑμᾶς ἐπέκεινα Βαβυλῶνος) replaces the Damascus of the original, and effectively
extends the events beyond the deportation of the northern tribes. If Stephen
was only using Amos to demonstrate idolatry at the time of the exodus then his
argument would not require this phrase at all. Third, some of the language of
the quotation is repeated in Acts 7.44 to describe a more positive approach to
worship (σκηνή, ἔρημος, ποιέω, τύπος). This repetition emphasises the contrast
between the idolatry of Amos, and the implied fulfilment of the promise to
Abraham in Acts 7.44-47.
The second
quotation criticises the practice of Stephen’s contemporaries by associating
them with the disobedient worshippers. The introduction gives the meaning of
the quotation: God is transcendent and is not housed in a temple. This is not a
criticism of building a house for God (and preferring the tabernacle) because
neither is mentioned in Acts 7.48; instead, it is a criticism of attitudes
towards the temple. Nor is it claiming that God cannot be met in a temple, it
is saying that a temple cannot have exclusive claim to deity; in other words,
God cannot be domesticated. This is hardly a novel insight: Jewish theology
referred to God’s glory or name (and not God) as resident in the temple; and
Solomon’s dedicatory prayer for the temple (3 Kgdms 8.15-53) describes the
inadequacy of the temple as a dwelling for God. It is therefore unlikely that
Stephen is giving a correction to inadequate theology of transcendence among
his hearers; rather, it is written to show that their attitudes and practice
have ended up treating the temple as if it were God’s dwelling – which it is
not, as they know. The end of the quotation is phrased as a rhetorical
question, not a summary statement like the original, and this directs the
accusation at Stephen’s opponents. They were not using the temple as God
intended; instead they belonged in the disobedient line of Jewish history, and
were part of the people they had judged during Stephen’s re-telling of history.
(Steve Smith, The Fate of the Jerusalem Temple in Luke-Acts: An Intertextual
Approach to Jesus' Laments Over Jerusalem and Stephen's Speech [Library of
New Testament Studies 553; London: T&T Clark, 2017], 167-68)