Would the reader
think the temple was being de-emphasized by the reference to worship at the “tent
of testimony” in the wilderness? Although God gave the tabernacle pattern to
Moses (7:44), indicating its divinely ordained status, the people misused it
(treating it as the “tent of Moloch”—7:43). Consequently, they did not offer
sacrifices to God (7:42) but to Moloch. For Luke, the “tent of testimony” is
considered the divinely ordained place for worship, but he also implies that
this is the one in which Moloch was being served, suggesting both true and
false worship going on at the same time. While this tabernacle initially fulfilled
God’s promise concerning worship (7:7), it was misused. The reader, therefore,
finds that the tabernacle worship is tainted. The same pattern is then depicted
for the temple—Israel treated the tabernacle in an idolatrous manner, just as
the reader now sees Stephen (through the linking words concerning “hands”—7:41,
48) arguing his contemporaries are treating the temple, which also was built
with divine favor (7:46). Therefore, both the temple and the tabernacle were built
with divine approval; however, both have become victims of corrupt use. Both
the tabernacle and the temple, nevertheless, continued to be places for divine
worship in their respective times. The reader, as a result, finds Stephen commending
the temple’s misuse, not the temple itself. It, therefore, is not a temple critique,
but a critique of Jewish practice. (Michael A. Salmeier, Restoring the
Kingdom: The Role of God as the “Ordainer of Times and Season” in the Acts of
the Apostles [Princeton Monograph Series 165; Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick
Publications, 2011], 114)
