This is from an email from my friend, David Harper, and used with his permission
I've found five more sources on Acts 7:48 not being a condemnation of the temple (like some scholars have suggested) that would fit well in your blog:
The second major debated issue is whether Stephen’s speech can be called temple critical or not. If it is, it would seem to go against the general portrayal of the temple elsewhere in Luke-Acts. For example, in Luke 1–2 the temple is portrayed in a positive light as the proper place for teaching, cleansing rituals, and sacrifice. Though Jesus is said to predict the dismantling of the Herodian temple (Luke 21:6), this does not constitute criticism of the temple cultus per se, as a glance at the Qumran literature will show. This is all the more the case since Jesus is described shortly after this passage as one who taught day after day in the temple (Luke 22:53). Worshiping in the temple is seen as a positive trait that was characteristic of the early church in the Lukan summary in Acts 2:46, and the early teaching and healing of the apostles is seen as appropriately done there as well (cf. Acts 3–4). In short, if Stephen’s speech is Lukan-edited summary of a source, and even more if it is a Lukan creation, there is nothing in the earlier portions of Luke-Acts to prepare Theophilus for this speech to be radically temple critical.
The suggestion that the speech is temple critical is largely based on an assumed contrast between things made with human hands and things made by God, and secondarily on a perceived contrast between the tent of witness and the temple as a “house” built by Solomon for God. In other words, it is based on material that does not begin to appear in the speech before v. 40, even though the more polemical portion of the speech begins in v. 35 and is clearly directed against the rejection of their leaders by God’s people. It is often overlooked that the perceived contrast between things made with human hands and things made by God does not parallel the supposed contrast between tent and house, not least because the tent of witness was also made with human hands. Furthermore, the terms σκηνη (tent) and οικος (house) are not used consistently in the speech to set up a good/bad contrast. For example, in 7:43 there is a reference to the bad “tent” of Moloch, and in vv. 46–47 there is at the least a nonpolemical reference to God’s dwelling place or house.
It is highly doubtful that the δε in v. 47 should be seen as adversative, setting up a contrast between the dwelling place of God and the “house.” The contrast comes rather at v. 48 with the αλλα (“yet”). This means that the issue is not “tent” versus “house” but rather true and false thinking about God’s presence. As D. De Silva has persuasively shown, what the Stephen speech is arguing for is that God transcends human structures, not that God’s presence can’t be found in temples.278 God does not dwell in, by which is meant God is not confined by or to, structures made with human hands. This point comports nicely with Luke’s theology of a universal salvation that can be conveyed anytime and anywhere by the presence of God in the person of the Holy Spirit. We have already seen the Holy Spirit at work in the temple precincts in Acts 2–6, and Luke is not suggesting anything different by passing along the Stephen speech.
Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 262–263.
48a ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐν χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ, “though the Most High does not live in hand-made things,” brings us to the crux of Stephen’s speech. The adversative ἀλλά, “however,” introduces a qualification to the previous statement that Solomon built a house to make clear that Israel’s God is not limited to a temple. The reading οἴκῳ, “house,” in v. 46 reinforces the contrast, for Stephen has asserted that the temple was built for the people. Barrett takes the adversative as indicating that building the temple at all was an error; however, that is not the point of the contrast. Rather, Stephen’s observation reflects an ambivalence about the temple that dates back to its dedication, where Solomon recognizes the transcendence of God in similar terms to here (see further below on “the Most High” and vv. 48b–50) and asks whether God can live (κατοικήσει, the same verb as here) with humans on earth (1 Kgs 8:27 LXX). In both its original dedication and Stephen’s speech, the temple is relativized by God’s transcendence: “the issue is not ‘tent’ versus ‘house’ but rather true and false thinking about God’s presence.”265
The principle enunciated here is not controversial in first-century Judaism, by contrast with the widespread pantheism of the Greco-Roman world, a world Stephen probably knew, assuming he grew up in the diaspora.267 Further, although there is no explicit mention of tent or temple in this verse, χειροποίητος, “hand-made,” signals that the temple is now being treated as an idol (note the echo of v. 41 τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν, “the works of their hands,” referring to the golden calf), a shocking claim that would be deeply offensive to those present. χειροποίητος, “hand-made,” only occurs elsewhere in Acts at 17:24, in a pagan context in Athens where Paul asserts that the creator God does not live (κατοικεῖ, as here) in hand-made shrines (cf. Mark 14:58, a saying without parallel in Luke; Heb 9:11, 24). LXX use of χειροποίητος, “hand-made,” is exclusively for idols (e.g., Lev 26:1, 30; Isa 46:6); notably, Isa 16:12 uses τὰ χειροποίητα αὐτῆς, “her hand-made things,” for the sanctuary where the Moabites pray to their god. By contrast, and relatively unusually, Philo understands that the tent (Acts 7:44) was made by human hands too; he calls it ἱερὸν χειροποίητον, “a temple made with hands,” and that is no criticism (Moses 2.88). Thus, the atmosphere of χειροποίητος for Jewish hearers is generally negative. These statements about the temple chime in with Jesus’s warning of the temple’s destruction because of the people’s sin (Luke 19:44 with 21:6), and it is striking that Stephen goes on to highlight the Sanhedrin’s sin in killing Jesus (vv. 51–52).
God is ὁ ὕψιστος, “the Most High,” for the only time in this speech, stressing God’s transcendence and supremacy. The juxtaposition with οὐχ, “not,” is striking, for “the position of οὐχ puts the Most High in relief,” further contrasting the greatness of YHWH with a humanly constructed temple. God’s true living place is heaven (1 Kgs 8:30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49), not earth, but God can and does make himself known on earth, as he appeared in the cloud at the temple’s dedication (1 Kgs 8:10–11) and has now made himself known in Jesus and among Jesus’s followers.
Steve Walton, Acts 1–9:42, ed. David B. Capes, vol. 37A, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2024), 470–472.
While many interpret the introductory conjunction translated as “yet” (ἀλλά) as expressing a critique of the temple built by Solomon mentioned in the previous verse, this interpretation is problematic for the following reasons. (1) Luke has a positive view of the temple in Jerusalem, for the apostles continue to meet there (see on vv. 46–47). (2) Solomon himself expressed the conviction that God’s presence cannot be confined to the temple (1 Kgs 8:27). (3) Solomon recognized that God hears prayers from heaven, where he dwells (1 Kgs 8:30). (4) It should be recognized that structures “made by human hands” (χειροποιήτοι) include not only temples but also the tabernacle. Both in the description of Bezalel and Oholiab, who were chosen to build the tabernacle (Exod 35:30–35), and in the description of the building of the tabernacle (Exod 36:1–38), the verb “to make” (ποιέω) is used numerous times, always implying “making with hands.” (5) The Greek verb translated as “dwell” (κατοικεῖ) can be used both with regard to permanent buildings made of stone and with regard to temporary structures such as tents.
As regards the phrase “made by human hands” (χειροποιήτοι), the fact that most English versions translate the Greek nominalized adjective with “houses made by (with) human hands” prejudices the interpretation in terms of a reference to the temple (a house) in contrast to the tabernacle (a tent). The nominalized adjective can refer to any structure that human beings have made, which includes the tabernacle. The fact that the term occurs in the LXX most often as a derogatory expression used for idols and their temples does not mean that the Greek term used by Luke automatically has this negative connotation for his Greek-speaking readers (who would use the term in many other contexts).1778
This is particularly true for Stephen who would have used an Aramaic expression; note that in the LXX the term χειροποιήτοι often translates the Hebrew term for “idols” (אֱלִילִם), which does not have the connotation “handmade.” Interpretations as the following are thus less than certain, “For that word to be used of the temple would certainly have sent shock waves through any Jewish audience that God’s presence cannot be encapsulated or represented in any physical or man-made entity—the temple itself an idol!… Anyone who put forward these views, and in Jerusalem (rather than from the safety of, say, Qumran or Leontopolis) must have enraged a Jewish audience beyond bearing.” Luke reports on the “rage” of the audience in v. 54, not after v. 48 but after Stephen’s charge that they oppose the Holy Spirit (v. 51), that they are just like those Jews who killed the prophets (v. 52), and that they have not kept the law (v. 53). Stephen’s point is not that Solomon made a mistake in building the temple “but that those people are wrong who think that God dwells there and is confined to this one place.”1781 The problem is not the temple in Jerusalem as such “but Israel’s false perception that the temple somehow renders God manageable.” The description of God as “the Most High” (ὁ ὕψιστος; Hebr. אֵל עֶלְיֽוֹן) underlines God’s transcendence and sovereign rule over all things which cannot be contained in a structure made by human beings.
Stephen’s statement that God cannot and must not be confined to one particular structure that human beings have built rests not only on Solomon’s words during the dedication of the temple (1 Kgs 8:27, 30) but also on the words of the prophet Isaiah in Isa 66:1–2, where God emphasizes, as the context in Isa 66 indicates, that he wants “humble obedience from his people rather than the building of an elaborate temple and the offering of sacrifices that are no better than the abominable practices of other people if unaccompanied by full obedience to him.” Note the continuation of v. 2 in Isa 66: “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word” (Isa 66:2b). Stephen does not accuse Israel of wrongly worshiping God in a temple of wood and stone. He emphasizes that the people of Israel misunderstand worship as taking place in a man-made structure while failing to see that God has created everything and thus demands full obedience expressed in repentance and in humble acceptance of God’s revelation.
Stephen emphasizes that it is not he who denigrates the temple but the Jewish leaders, who abase the temple by thinking that they have God at their command, failing to use the temple as a place for a dynamic encounter with the living God. He emphasizes that it is not he who speaks against God but the Jewish leaders, who offend God by failing to understand God’s transcendence of which the temple is only a sign, and by failing to grasp the full extent of what God demands from them—which now includes, most critically, the acknowledgment and faith in Jesus as the one who rules on David’s throne at God’s right hand, fulfilling God’s promises for the last days. This is Stephen’s point, the main point of his speech, as the following verses demonstrate.
Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts, Expanded Digital Edition, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 385–386.
47–50 Stephen moves immediately to the record of 1 Kings 5–9 and notes that ‘it was Solomon who built a house for him’. Solomon brought the ark of the Lord and ‘the tent of meeting’ into the temple (1 Ki. 8:4), signifying that the exodus traditions would now be centred there. When the glory of the Lord filled the temple, it was taken by Solomon as a sign that the Lord had placed his ‘name’ or ‘presence’ there, so that his people could pray to him there (cf. 1 Ki. 8:10–13, 17–21, 27–30; 9:3). However, Solomon’s prayer of dedication acknowledges that heaven is God’s dwelling place and that the temple cannot contain him (1 Ki. 8:27–30). Stephen echoes this point when he declares that ‘the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands’ (en cheiropoiētois katoikei, ‘does not dwell in things made by human hands’; cf. 17:24 [Paul]). The issue in Acts 7 is not ‘tent’ versus ‘house’ but rather ‘true and false thinking about God’s presence’. The expression en cheiropoiētois (‘in things made by human hands’) is often interpreted in the light of 7:41 and the use of such terminology in the LXX with reference to idolatry. This leads some scholars to argue that Stephen is attacking the building of the temple as a declension from God and effectively an idolatrous activity. It has also been suggested that ‘the brevity with which Solomon’s building is introduced and dismissed, and the contrast implied with David’s intention, which was not to be realized until the advent of a greater than Solomon, expresses plain disapproval’.67 However, the focus of the verse is rather on the temple as ‘a man-made institution which, by seeking to express some claim upon God, limits the divine freedom and so impairs the divine transcendence’. Stephen makes this clear by quoting from Isaiah 66:1–2a; ‘ “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things?” ’ Stephen contrasts things made by human hands (cheiropoiētois) with the creation of all things by God’s hand (ouchi hē cheir mou epoiēsen tauta panta). Isaiah insists that no earthly building can contain the maker of all things, who rules in sovereign freedom from heaven. An earthly dwelling, where he chooses to manifest his presence and reveal his will, cannot be taken to be his permanent resting place (topos tēs katapauseōs). Moreover, ‘this declaration of God’s independence of the Jerusalem temple is also a declaration of God’s availability to all with or without the temple’. Stott’s concluding comment on this section is worth quoting in full: ‘It is evident then from Scripture itself that God’s presence cannot be localized, and that no building can confine him or inhibit his activity. If he has a home on earth, it is with his people that he lives. He has pledged himself by a solemn covenant to be their God. Therefore, according to his covenant promise, wherever they are, there he is also.’ However, it is also possible that Stephen’s reference to a house for God ‘not made with hands’ was meant to point more specifically to the way God’s purpose is fulfilled in Christ and the church.71 We do not know whether Stephen was explicitly teaching such things, but it is a reasonable assumption, even from the false charges levelled against him (6:13–14).
David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 262–264.
Scholarship is sharply divided over whether Stephen completely rejected the temple or whether he was offering a prophetic critique. In light of the overall picture of the temple in Luke-Acts and even in Stephen’s speech itself, the latter seems the more likely. The theme of worshiping God in this place (i.e., in the Jerusalem temple) is set forth quite positively in the beginning of Stephen’s speech (v. 7). The emphasis, however, is on the worship—not the “place” of worship. Stephen did not reject the temple as such but the abuse of the temple, which made it into something other than a place for offering worship to God. His view is thus closely linked to that of Jesus, who also attacked the abuses of the temple cult and stressed its true purpose of being a “house of prayer” (Luke 19:46).
The particular abuse that Stephen addressed was the use of the temple to restrict, confine, and ultimately to try to manipulate God. This seems to have been the significance in his contrast between the tabernacle in vv. 44–46 and the temple in vv. 47–48. The tabernacle was designed (v. 44) and approved by God. It was a “dwelling place” for God, but not a “house” of God. It is the concept of “house” to which Stephen objected. As a “house” the temple was conceived as a man-made edifice in which God was confined: “This is his house—here and nowhere else.”
John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 203.
