Acts 7:48, however, contains a potentially more subversive claim,
as the term used to depict the tabernacle and temple, χειροποιητοις is used in the LXX
to describe idols and idolatry (e.g., Lev 26:1; Isa 16:12; 31:7; Jdt 8:18).118 If
Stephen is here equating the Jerusalem temple with an idol, and thus declaring
it illegitimate, then we can well imagine how this indictment would have
aroused not only the anger of the chief priests charged with oversight of the
temple, but also the vast majority of Jews who held the temple as sacred. While
polemics against the very existence of the temple is here possible, several
lines of argumentation run contrary to this conclusion.
First, though the invocation of the term χειροποιητοις may
have been the cause of some consternation, it was also undeniably the case that
both the tabernacle and temple were man-made. As a result, the semantic choice
to use χειροποιητοις does not necessitate any radical
critique on the part of Stephen, and may well have been used as a statement of
fact. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Philo, who praises the Jerusalem
temple on other occasions, can also refer to this temple as χειροποιητοις
(Spec. Laws 1.66–67), and to the Mosaic tabernacle
as χειροποιητοις (Mos. 2.88). Philo’s description of the
tabernacle and temple as “made by human hands” reveals that specific words such
as χειροποιητοις are not necessarily fraught with baggage. This
adjective could also be used to merely describe the temple’s human origins.
Second, in invoking Isaiah 66:1–2, Stephen repeats a refrain found
at various points in the Hebrew Scriptures and which could be admitted by all –
the Most High does not dwell only in temples built by humans, for no temple can
contain him (cf. 1 Kgs 8:27). Since this citation concludes the main argument
of Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:36–50), the stress of his speech appears to be on
the transcendence of God and the impossibility of confining this presence to
one locale, an understanding which leaves little room for making too much of
the temple itself or placing more trust in the inviolability of the temple than
in the God who gives the temple substance and meaning. While no Israelite
prophet had ever equated the temple with idolatry, they do at times come close
to this assertion. Following in the footsteps of Jeremiah’s riposte to the
sinful actions of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their recitation of the
thrice-repeated mantra “the temple of the Lord” (Jer 7:4), Stephen appears to
be asserting that the existence of the temple, and the belief that God dwelled
in this place to the exclusion of all other locations, were not enough to
ensure God’s continued presence with the Jewish people. Misplaced trust in the
temple had proven disastrous before. God, Stephen reminds his audience, cannot
be contained in any temple or man-made structure.
A third and final observation regarding Stephen’s temple speech
has to do with the timing of the response to his speech. If Stephen had
directed a scathing attack on the temple, we would have expected the presiding
high priest, or some other individual, to intervene at this point and condemn him.
That this does not occur suggests that Stephen’s argument was not beyond the
pale of Jewish thinking on the temple. Instead, only after clarifying the
importance of the temple through an appeal to Isaiah 66:1–2 in Acts 7:50 does
Stephen go on the offensive in Acts 7:51, accusing those in attendance of
opposing the Holy Spirit and killing the prophets as well as Jesus. The
accusatory tone is unmistakable, as the first person “we” seen throughout the
speech is transformed into the second person “you.” Only at this point, when
Stephen’s speech becomes an ad hominem attack on the Jewish religious
leadership and a reminder of the Sanhedrin’s complicity and accompanying guilt
in the death of Jesus, does his audience respond in kind.
As some scholars have noted, the sharp demarcation between Acts
7:50 and 7:51 comes directly at the point in which Stephen’s speech switches from
the argumentatio, or main argument (7:36–50), to the peroratio,
or emotional/polemical conclusion (7:51–53). In the classical rhetoric of antiquity,
the peroratio usually had three objectives: to sum up the speech, incite
indignation against an opponent, and to arouse pity for the speaker. The second
of these objectives features prominently in the conclusion to Stephen’s speech,
and, according to the narrative in Acts, it was Stephen’s condemnation of the
Jerusalem religious leadership which led directly to his death. Taken
together, this suggests that though Stephen may have held a low view of the
temple, it was not his views on the temple which led to his death. Rather, it
was Stephen’s vitriolic attack on the religious leadership in attendance that
went too far and which led to his demise. In sum, while Stephen’s speech does
contain condemnation, the chief priests, and not the temple, were his main
target. Though some critique of the temple cannot be completely ruled out,
Stephen aims his chief barbs at the priestly overseers of the temple and the
mistaken belief, presumably promulgated by this same priestly aristocracy, that
God could be exclusively contained in a physical building.
Was Stephen’s criticism of his contemporary chief priests an
isolated incident, or did other early Christians also continue Jesus’ critique
of these Jerusalem priests? The narrative of Acts reveals that open devaluation
of the temple and critique of the Jerusalem priests on the part of the early Christians
was a rare occurrence. Stephen provides the lone example, and, judging from the
book of Acts, he ended poorly. But there were other, more subtle moves by the
early Christians that also revealed their dissatisfaction with the priestly
leadership of the temple in Jerusalem. A second example comes from Acts 4:11
and Peter and John’s use of Psalm 118:22 in response to their chief priestly
interlocutors. (Timothy Wardly, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christianity
[Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 291; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 199-202, emphasis in bold added)
It is interesting that Stephen’s “critique” of the temple
essentially echoes the sentiments of Solomon at the dedication of the first
temple. Similar to Solomon, Stephen is not offering a new view of the temple,
but is rather affirming that the temple itself cannot confine God. See Chance, Jerusalem,
40. In addition, it is worth noting that Jews had been living in the Diaspora
for centuries, and in this time had developed various ways of living a faithful
Jewish life away from easy access to the temple. While Stephen’s evaluation of
the temple may have seemed harsh to some in Jerusalem, his appraisal is in line
with what one might expect from a Diaspora Jew. (Ibid., 201 n. 123)
