Acts and the Temple: Possible Insights from Hebrews

1. Introduction

It was over fifty years ago that William Manson suggested that

the author of Hebrews might have been a Hellenist of the same

sort Stephen had been.1 Underlying his hypothesis was the

general assumption that the “compiler of Acts” had some sort of

source material from Jerusalem at his (or her?) disposal.2 He

thus took Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7 as a fairly straightforward

presentation of the historical Stephen’s thought and categories.3

The arguments for such a source remain worthy of consideration,

1 The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration (London: Hodder

and Stoughton, 1951.

2 Hebrews, 25-26. We have no objection in theory to the suggestion that the

author of Luke-Acts might have been a woman. In general, however, it does not

seem likely given either the general patriarchalism of the day or the

likelihood that the author wrote under the commission of a patron. For this

reason I will refer to the author of Luke-Acts as a “he” in the paper, without

closing the door to the unlikely possibility that its author might have been a

woman. We would simply need a compelling reason not to make this assumption

given the cultural biases of the first century.

3 “The narrative of Acts vi.-vii. rests undoubtedly on an ancient source”

(27).

1

namely, some distinctions in Stephen’s speech from the adjoining

context of Acts, particularly in terms of its content and overall

thrust. As recently as 1998 Ben Witherington could claim that,

“Most scholars… rightly recognize Luke drawing on some sort of

source here.”4

It does not seem possible, however, to draw a firm conclusion

either way. Good writers can imitate a different perspective,

even style, in composition—especially if they have significant

experience of the type of person they are imitating. Thucydides

famously remarked in his Peloponnesian Wars that he had composed

some speeches in his history according to what he thought would

have been appropriate for the context, even when he had no

sources or personal knowledge of what was actually said on the

occasion.5 Further, the speech has significant elements of Lucan

style and vocabulary, regardless of any hypothetical sources the

author might have utilized.6 In the end, it is not necessary for

4 The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),

265.

5 Peloponnesian Wars 1.22.

6 Cf. J. Kilgallen, The Stephen Speech (AnBib 67; Rome: Biblical Institute,

1976), 121. Just as one example, the speech begins with “Men, brothers and

2

us to draw final conclusions on the question of sources behind

Stephen’s speech, oral or written. Even if the author had such a

source or sources, we would expect him to adapt them in

accordance with his purposes in composing the book of Acts itself

and in his representation of Stephen. A quick comparison of Luke

4:14-30 with Mark 6:1-6, or Acts 15 with Gal. 2, or even Luke 24

with Acts 1, points to a creative penchant on the author’s part

to rearrange, expand, and re-present material in pleasing ways

that at the same time brought out his key perspectives on Jesus

and the early Christians who followed.7

fathers” just as Paul’s speech in Acts 22:1 begins, “Men, brothers and

fathers.” Similarly, Paul’s speech in 13:15 and 23:1, as well as Peter’s

speech in Acts 15:7, all begin, “Men, brothers.” Todd Penner’s recent study

of Acts 7 in relation to history concludes that, “The speech of Acts 7 is most

likely a Lukan creation de novo, as were many speeches in ancient

historiography” (In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic

Historiography [New York: T & T Clark, 2004], 331).

7 In the case of Luke-Acts, the sorts of comparisons I mention above seem

conclusive. One might of course argue that Acts 15 and Galatians 2 are not

the same event, but Luke 24 and Acts 1 clearly are, and if we accept Markan

priority, it seems very difficult to deny that Luke 4:14-30 is indeed the

author’s version of Mark 6:1-6.

3

In this light, it is a little surprising that such little

exploration of Acts 7 has been done in view of the destruction of

the temple in 70CE. The majority of scholars today would of

course argue that the book of Acts postdates the temple’s

destruction. Most would date Mark itself to the late 60s or

early 70s, and the vast majority still hold to the hypothesis

that Luke used Mark as a source.8 This fact alone would

necessitate a post-70CE dating. We have further Luke’s apparent

editing of Mark’s eschatological discourse, altering a vague

reference to the temple’s desecration (Mark 13:14) into a fairly

explicit picture of armies surrounding the city (Luke 21:20; cf.

19:41-44), a redaction best explained by the clarification of

hindsight. These observations make it very difficult to argue

for a pre-70CE date for both Luke and Acts.

Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, therefore, would have undoubtedly

evoked images of the destruction of the temple for anyone hearing

or reading it. Even this small observation dramatically alters

how we hear the speech. It immediately becomes more an apologia8 John Kloppenborg has recently made arguments for a post-70 date for Mark

in its current form based on tensions between the eschatological discourse and

its context. See “Evocatio deorum and the Date of Mark,” JBL 124 (2005): 419-50.

4

for the temple’s destruction rather than a polemic against the

temple.9 We and others have recently made similar arguments in

relation to the book of Hebrews.10 Its author’s arguments about

the Levitical cultus would take on significantly different

connotations depending on whether the temple was standing at the

time of writing or not. It makes the difference between a rather

stark polemic against a standing institution and a strategizing

consolation in its absence.

Our purpose in the next few minutes is to explore the strong

possibility that Manson was correct to see significant parallels

between Stephen’s speech and the sermon we call Hebrews. At the

same time, he likely had the lines of influence running the wrong

direction. Rather than the author of Hebrews standing in a9 We might note as an aside that Acts 28 takes on similar connotations when

we read it in this light. Rather than some anti-Semitic statement, the author

of Acts provides an explanation for why we currently find ourselves in the

“times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24).

10 E.g., Richard B. Hays, “Here We Have No Lasting City: New Covenantalism

in Hebrews,” The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, R. J. Bauckham, D. R.

Driver, T. A. Hart and N. MacDonald, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). See

also my Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice (SNTSMS 143;

Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2007), 40-41, 195-98.

5

tradition of Hellenists going back to Stephen, it is far more

likely that the author of Acts has presented Stephen with someone

like the author of Hebrews, perhaps even with Hebrews itself, in

mind. That is not to say that the historical Stephen may not

have been remembered for his critique of the temple, perhaps in a

way more vigorous and explicit than Jesus’ core disciples. It is

only to say that Stephen’s speech as we now have it likely says

as much or more about a particular perspective in the church at

the time of Acts than it does about the historical Stephen.

2. Intersections between Hebrews and Acts 7

William Manson suggested eight points where he believed the

emphases of Acts 7 recurred in Hebrews.11 Lincoln Hurst’s 1990

monograph on the background of Hebrews revisited and evaluated

these, with him concluding that Hebrews and Acts 7 overlapped

noticeably on at least six points.12 Although our primary

interest is in the attitudes of Stephen’s speech and Hebrews

11 Hebrews, 36.

12 The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge

University, 1990), 105-6.

6

toward the Jerusalem temple, it is worthwhile to rehearse all of

Hurst’s six points:

1) the attitude of Stephen and Hebrews to the Levitical cultus

and the Mosaic Law13

2) the transient nature of Christian life on earth as homeless

pilgrims14

3) God’s word as living15

4) Joshua in connection with God’s promised rest16

5) angels as the mediators of the Law17

6) the common reference to Exodus 25:4018

Several of these would be interesting individually. It is

noteworthy, for example, that Acts 7 (7:38, 53) shares with Paul

(Gal. 3:19) and Hebrews (2:2) the tradition that the Law was

delivered through angels. It is also intriguing that both Acts

7:44 and Hebrews 8:5 reference Exodus 25:40 in relation to a

13 Background, 95-97.

14 Background, 98-100.

15 Background, 100-2.

16 Background, 102-3.

17 Background, 103.

18 Background, 104. Hurst added this common point to Manson’s list.

7

pattern shown to Moses for the wilderness tabernacle. The real

force of the comparison, however, comes both from the cumulative

effect of the parallels and the similarity of two in particular,

namely, God’s people as aliens and the tabernacle/temple motifs.

Hurst thus rightly concludes that “when dealing with such a small

piece of writing as Acts 7, the parallels are impressive and

numerous enough to suggest that some form of Manson’s case is

plausible.”19

In terms of what we are calling the alien motif, Acts 7

parallels Hebrews 11 in some interesting ways. Hebrews 11 itself

is a sequence of exempla from Israel’s history, each of which is

anaphorically introduced with by the word pi/stei, “by faith.”

Each example provides for the audience an instance of faith for

them to emulate. These examples are not simple generalizations

the author has chosen out of the blue. Each one arguably

reinforces in some way the author’s specific rhetorical purposes

in writing Hebrews in the first place. The need to believe, even

when the object of one’s faith is not visible, is not just some

general exhortation (e.g., believing in creation, Noah believing

19 Background, 106.

8

a flood would come, Abraham looking to inherit the land). It

relates directly to the course of action the author of Hebrews

wants the audience to take. The same applies to other examples,

such as faith in the right kind of sacrifice (e.g., Abel), in

God’s power to raise the dead (e.g., Isaac), and faithfulness in

the face of opposing human authorities (e.g., Moses’ parents).20

The example list of Hebrews 11 is not simply a random run through

Israel’s history or the incorporation of some unrelated Jewish

source from elsewhere, but each example illustrates and

contributes to the author’s specific hortatory purposes.

Such would also seem to be the case with Acts 7, even if we do

not have the benefit of a surrounding discursive argument to

corroborate its exact import. It is commonly recognized that

Stephen’s speech is not a direct response to the charges against

him, playing into the hands of those who would suggest we have in

Acts 7 the incorporation of an independent source.21

20 See my Understanding the Book of Hebrews (Louisville: Westminster John Knox,

2003), esp. 66-68 and 95-97 for hints of possible parallels between the

exempla of Hebrews 11 and the audience’s situation.

21 E.g., C. H. H. Scobie, “The Use of Source Material in the Speeches of

Acts 3 and 7,” NTS 25 (1979): 399-421.

9

Nevertheless, David Peterson puts it well when he writes that,

“The main intention of this prophetic-type utterance is to ‘turn

the tables’ on his opponents by presenting an extensive

indictment against them.”22 If we are careful, we can hear in

this sermon an appropriate response to the charges that both

explains the reasons for the accusations against Stephen, while

showing that the real object of his critique was not the temple

per se or the Mosaic Law itself but the way in which Israel’s

leaders understood and implemented them. We will argue that we

find not a little hindsight in the way the author of Acts has

crafted this speech, even if it likely did connect in some

general way to how the historical Stephen was remembered.

The key content of the speech is 1) Abraham’s sojourn (7:2-8),

2) the sojourn of Joseph and his family in Egypt (7:9-16), 3) the

repeated rejection of Moses and God’s oracles by Israel (7:17-

43), 4) climaxing in the implied idolatry of Israel toward the

temple (7:44-50), followed immediately by 5) Stephen’s direct

indictment of Israel’s current leaders (7:51-53).23 As in22 The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 244.

23 I am not necessarily suggesting that this breakdown of the content of

the speech is necessarily the best way to break it down from the standpoint of

10

Hebrews, each segment of the speech arguably contributes to the

author’s overall case in some way. The Abraham segment (7:2-8)

seems to focus on land and Abraham’s lack of permanent residence

or ownership of the places where he dwelled, even in the land

promised him. God predicts to Abraham that his descendants will

be enslaved and mistreated under foreign rule as aliens (7:6).

The discussion of Joseph (7:9-16) then features how Jacob’s

family came to live in that foreign land during a time of great

suffering. At the same time, the author highlights the tension

within God’s family between the one God had chosen, Joseph, and

his jealous brothers who persecuted him (7:9).

Acts 7:17-43 deals with Moses. The segment begins with the

oppression of God’s people in a foreign land (7:17-19). 7:20-22

introduces Moses who, like Joseph, stood out among his people.

His people, however, did not recognize what God was doing for

them through Moses (7:23-25). They drove him out, forcing him,

its literary structure. For questions of rhetoric and literary structure, see

G. A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina, 1984), 121-22; J. Dupont, “La Structure Oratoire

du Discours d’Étienne (Actes 7),” Biblica (1985): 153-67; and B. Witherington,

Acts, 260-61.

11

like Joseph and Abraham, to be a foreigner in the place he lived

(7:27-29). Acts 7:30-43 then deal broadly with God bringing

Moses back again to the sons of Israel and their repeated

rejection of him. While God tries to deliver them from their

oppressors, they reject God’s appointed ruler and liberator

(7:33-35). They turn instead to idols they made with their own

hands instead of offering sacrifices to God (7:41-42).

As we ask about the subtext(s) of these selections, one

obvious one is that the author of Acts wanted his audience to

think of Jesus, almost explicitly mentioning him in comparison to

Moses in 7:37. The author’s mention of the prophet like Moses in

Deuteronomy 18:15 would have immediately identified Moses as a

symbolic representation of Christ. Once we recognize that

Israel’s rejection of Jesus is a subtext of the speech, we can

see a similar allusion in the rejection of Joseph by his brothers

as well. We will explore this subtext further in the following

section.

Another likely subtext of Stephen’s speech is the alienation

and oppression of Israel—sometimes as a result of its own

disobedience to God. The sons of Israel reject and alienate

12

God’s chosen leaders, and as a result they often then

subsequently face alienation and enslavement by hostile powers

like Egypt and Babylon. Some would thus distance the alienation

of God’s people in Acts 7 from their alien status in Hebrews 11.

They might claim that God’s people finally do inherit the land of

promise in Acts 7:45, while Hebrews indicates that the audience

remains aliens and strangers looking for a homeland and a city

(Heb. 11:14-16; 13:14).24 Certainly the tone of Acts 7 and

Hebrews 11 does differ in each case. For example, Hebrews 11

does not address the disobedience of Israel (although Hebrews

3:7-4:10 does in relation to the wilderness generation). The

tone of Hebrews 11 is positive and entirely affirming of its

examples from Israel’s history. By contrast, much of the

alienation in Acts 7 is a product of Israel’s own rejection of

God’s appointed leaders.25

24 E.g., Graham Stanton, “Stephen in Lucan Perspective,” Studia Biblica 3

(1978): 345ff, esp. 357. Hurst rightly points out that the settlement of the

land in 7:45 is hardly treated in the speech as a culmination or

accomplishment. It rather sets up the key complaint that follows, namely, the

over-veneration of the temple (Background, 100).

25 So emphasized M. Simon, St. Stephen and the Hellenists (1958), 101f.

13

Nevertheless, despite the fact that much of the alienation in

Acts 7 is a result of disobedience, the speech does seem to

involve an underlying distinction between the current

“locatedness” of God’s people, which includes things like the

lands they are in and things made with human hands, versus their

promised location and God’s true location. The sojourning of

Abraham, for example, is not connected to any rejection of God on

his part but, like Hebrews, is God’s design for his current

location. Similarly, the impermanence of Jacob’s family as

strangers in Egypt is not clearly the result of anyone’s

disobedience. The famine that leads Jacob’s family to Egypt is

not said to be the result of the jealousy of Joseph’s brothers or

any similar human failure. Acts 7:41 seems to connect the

idolatry of the golden calf with an inappropriate “rejoicing” in

“the works of their hands.” Surely the author did not see

working with one’s hands in itself to be idolatrous. The problem

with the calf is surely an inappropriate valuing of the works of

one’s hands rather than the fact that something is a product of

one’s hands per se.

14

This distinction seems to be particularly important when we

get to the crucial text of Acts 7:48, where Solomon’s temple is

called a xeiropoi/htoj, a characteristic the author has just

connected to the golden calf. Such a depiction in this context

might initially seem jarring to us, indeed an explanation in

itself for why Stephen gets stoned. This word alone has strongly

contributed to the sense of many scholars that Stephen seems to

convict himself of the charges of “speaking words against the

Holy Place,” despite the fact that the author refers to Stephen’s

accusers as false witnesses (6:13). We understand why someone

like James D. G. Dunn would say of the reference that, “The

adjective chosen, cheiropoiēton, ‘made with hands,’ would be a

horrifying word to use in this context” and “For just that word

to be used of the Temple would certainly have sent shock waves

through any Jewish audience or readership… the Temple itself an idol!”26

As jarring as xeiropoi/htoj seems in this context, however, we

probably should not, in the end, take it as an indication that

the earthly temple in itself was intrinsically idolatrous to the

26 The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the

Character of Christianity, 2nd ed. (London, SCM, 2006), 89.

15

author. If, for example, Stephen’s speech is heard to say that a

fixed temple in itself is an idol, in contrast to the moveable tent

of witness, then we would have the peculiar situation of Stephen

convicting himself of charges the author clearly says are false.

The burden of proof is on the one arguing for such narrative

inconsistency in such a short space. Further, the parallel in

Hebrews actually does, in this case, show that xeiropoi/htoj need

not, in itself, imply idolatry. Hebrews 9:24 refers to the Most

Holy Place of the earthly temple as xeiropoi/hta a3gia as an

expression of its inferiority rather than sinfulness. Philo too

at one point calls the temple a i9ero\n xeiropoi/hton (Mos. 2.88),

and he obviously did not consider it to be an idol.27

In the end we must therefore agree with those who see the

issue in Acts 7:48 not so much the temple itself, but an

overvaluing of its relationship to God. We should no doubt

picture Stephen’s implied audience to think he is speaking against

the Holy Place and thinking him to commit blasphemy, but the

author of Acts wants us rather to see Stephen correcting an

idolatrous attitude toward the temple. The Most High ultimately

27 Cf. Hurst, Background, 92.

16

does not dwell in things made by hands.28 The strong adversative

a0lla/ does not occur with Solomon building the temple in 7:47

but with the correction in 7:48 to the mistaken impression one

might get that God truly dwells in such earthly structures.

Stephen’s attitude toward the temple in this speech thus

contributes to an underlying sense in the passage of a

distinction between the current “location” of God’s people versus

both their promised location and God’s true location. Hebrews’

dualism between heaven and earth is much starker and its sense of

current alienation much more clearly defined cosmologically and

eschatologically. Nevertheless, Acts 7 looks much the same from

the ground of the audience. God’s people currently feel

oppressed and alienated like strangers in the places they live.

We have already looked briefly at the other strong parallel

between Acts 7 and Hebrews, namely, their sense of heaven as the

truest sanctuary of God’s presence and the early sanctuary being

patterned after it. To be sure, Acts 7 does not explicitly call28 Cf. Paul’s speech later in 17:24: “God… does not dwell in hand-made

temples.” Here is yet another indication that, at the very least, the author

of Acts has, at the very least, heavily edited the speeches of Acts, if not

freely composed them de novo.

17

the throne of heaven the Most Holy Place of a heavenly sanctuary,

but the contrast with the earthly temple in the previous verse,

coupled with the well known notion at the time that the cosmos

was God’s temple, pushes us in this direction.29 Similarly,

neither Acts 7:44 nor Hebrews 8:5 explicitly say that the pattern

Moses saw was a glimpse of the cosmos or a heavenly sanctuary.

Yet if these texts consider God’s throne to be the heavenly

equivalent of the Most Holy Place on earth, then it is reasonable

to conclude that the pattern Moses saw in each case was in fact a

glimpse of heaven or the cosmos itself, or alternatively a

heavenly sanctuary within heaven itself.30

The cumulative effect of these similarities is significant.

Both Hebrews and Acts 7 have a similar sense of recurring

alienation for God’s people. They seem to share a similar

understanding of the earthly sanctuary as a kind of

29 E.g., Philo: QEx 2.94; Josephus: Ant. 3.180-81; 4QShirShab; TLevi 3.

30 It is not necessary for our purposes to conclude whether the heavenly

sanctuary in each case is in fact the highest heaven itself or an actual

structure within heaven or whether the earth or lower skies were in some way

conceptualized as an outer room to a cosmic sanctuary. For the overall

issues, see my Cosmology and Eschatology, 144-81.

18

representation of where God’s presence is more focally located.

Both think of the earthly sanctuary as “hand-made” and use Exodus

25:40 as an indication that Moses was following a pattern for the

earthly sanctuary based on something else. Both of them

associate the giving of the Mosaic Law with angels.

Nevertheless, it is when we begin to read Acts 7 in its post-70CE

setting that the subtexts of Stephen’s sermon really stand out.

3. The Post-70 Context

In a very real sense, we do not need Hebrews to take our

interpretation of Stephen’s speech to the next level. The dating

of Acts is generally accepted as subsequent to 70CE and the

temple’s destruction, so we can fairly assume that Stephen’s

speech would have cued in its audience the memory of that event.

Similarly, it would have been difficult for a post-70 audience

not to hear in Stephen’s indictments of Israel an accusatory

explanation for why God had let the modern Babylon—Rome—enslave

God’s people again. The rejection of Moses in the speech would

have easily translated into broader Israel’s rejection of Jesus,

the prophet like Moses. Indeed, the author has deliberately

19

changed the Septuagintal text of Amos 5:25-27 from “Damascus” to

“Babylon,” not only to invoke the image of the Babylonian

captivity as a consequence of Israel’s disobedience, but perhaps

also because the Jews had begun to use “Babylon” as a code name

for Rome after Rome destroyed Jerusalem, just as the Babylonians

had earlier done.

Although these observations can stand on their own, it is a

particular reading of Hebrews that has led us personally to

recognize these dynamics. The idea that Hebrews might date to

the aftermath of the temple’s destruction is of course heavily

debated. Nevertheless, some recent treatments have pondered how

Hebrews might read if its rhetoric were taken not as a polemic

against participation in the Levitical cultus but as a kind of

consolation in the absence of one.31 The sermon locates itself

in second generation Christianity (e.g., Heb. 2:3) and seems to

imply that the founding leaders of its community were martyred

for their faith (cf. 13:7). Although we cannot know for certain,

Rome is the favorite suggested destination for those who hazard a

guess, based on 13:24. The only martyrdoms of local Christian

31 See, for example, n.10 above.

20

leaders we know of in Rome took place in the 60s, particularly

after Nero blamed Christians for the fire of Rome in 64CE.32

If we look to some time thereafter, when a believing community

in Rome might have faced discouraging times, not long after

Jerusalem’s destruction or perhaps later during Domitian’s reign

are what comes to mind.33 It is at this point that we begin to

pay special attention to statements in Hebrews like, “We have32 Tradition has it of course that Paul and Peter were also put to death by

Nero at some point around this time.

33 I do not find any of the usual arguments against a post-70 date

compelling. Hebrews 12:4, for example, merely indicates that the audience has

not, in their current situation, shed blood in their struggle against sin. It says

nothing of previous crises. The present tenses of sacrificial offering are

found in Jewish and Christian writers like Josephus and Clement long after the

temple was destroyed. Other arguments are circular, suggesting that since the

author is arguing against reliance on the Levitical cultus, the cultus must be

in existence to rely on. Yet the author never tells the audience not to

abstain from the central Levitical cultus (13:9-10 is surely about a Levitical

alternative, not the temple). If the author is encouraging an audience in the

absence of a temple, then he is not arguing against participation in the cultus

but that the audience never really needed the cultus in the first place. A

post-destruction setting might also explain why the entire argument is

hypothetical about the tabernacle rather than concrete about the temple.

21

here no remaining city” (13:14) and “they are seeking a homeland”

(11:14). It must have been devastating for Christians to see the

conquered Jews paraded through the streets of Rome and then put

to death after the destruction of Jerusalem. After all,

Christianity was still Judaism to its believers. What would

these believers now do for atonement without a temple? The

author admonishes them to have confidence that full atonement—in

fact the only atonement that had ever been truly effective—is

found in Christ’s sacrifice. They can have boldness to enter

into the true sanctuary in heaven for atonement by means of the

blood of Christ (e.g., 10:19).

Whenever one dates Hebrews, most would place it prior to Acts.

If it was written not long after the destruction of Jerusalem,

the two might date within a decade of each other. Given this

apparent proximity in time and content, it becomes much more

plausible that the author of Acts has portrayed Stephen somewhat

like the author of Hebrews, one of his contemporaries, than that

the author of Hebrews independently stood in a particular,

continuous theological tradition going back to the historical

Stephen, who lived perhaps forty years before. What does such a

22

scenario look like in terms of the interpretation of Acts 7, and

does it seem to clarify the subtext of Stephen’s sermon or cloud

its most likely meaning?

First, when Acts is read in a post-70CE context, Stephen’s

sermon seems less unique and discordant with some other features

of Acts than at first might suggest itself. The author, for

example, clearly would locate himself and his audience within

“the times of the Gentiles,” a period during which Jerusalem was

destined to be “trampled on” (Luke 21:24). In this light, the

climactic ending of Acts in Rome takes on an explanatory

dimension. God turns to the Gentiles for the time being because

the Jews have rejected the gospel (e.g., Acts 28:25-28). Paul’s

statement here is reminiscent of Stephen’s indictment in 7:51-53.

The recurring rebellion of the sons of Israel in Acts 7 comes to

mirror the later rejection of Jesus and to explain implicitly

why, once again, God had allowed yet another Babylon to destroy

Jerusalem. These indictments, however, are not anti-Semitic.

They are after the fact explanations of what had already happened

to Israel, just as we would argue Hebrews is more a consolation

in the absence of a temple than a polemic against one.

23

In this context, Stephen’s implicit indictment of the Jewish

leaders’ over-valuing of the temple in Acts 7 becomes far more an

after the fact explanation for the temple’s destruction than a

condemnation of the temple per se while it was standing. We thus

find no contradiction between the generally positive view of the

temple we find elsewhere in Acts. Indeed, we find no clear

indication that the author of Acts thought the Jerusalem temple

was gone forever. What we find is an explicit condemnation of

those who betrayed and murdered Jesus, the prophet like Moses

(e.g., 7:52). Those who accuse Stephen are thus false witnesses

because Stephen is not speaking against the temple itself, but

against those who, perhaps like the revolutionaries of the Jewish

War, could not distinguish between the temple in Jerusalem and

God’s ultimate dwelling place in heaven.

At the same time, we do seem to find tensions between the

theology of the author of Acts and that of the author of Hebrews.

The basic thrust of Hebrews is that no Levitical blood sacrifice

has ever truly atoned for any sin (e.g., Heb. 10:5). The blood

of Jesus, offered by way of an eternal spirit, is the only truly

effective sacrifice for all eternity (e.g., 9:14; 10:14). Acts,

24

by contrast, pictures apparently regular participation in the

Jerusalem temple, likely including sacrifices, even by Paul

himself (cf. Acts 21:24-26), while apparently downplaying the

tradition of Christ’s death as a sacrifice or ransom (e.g.,

compare Mark 10:45 with Luke 22:27). Similarly, it is not

difficult to imagine that the historical Stephen actually was

remembered as indicting the temple administration in some way, as

Jesus apparently did, even if it is unlikely Stephen had nearly

as fully developed a “replacement theology” for the temple as the

author of Hebrews eventually developed.

We would argue that this overall conception of Acts 7 provides

the fullest and richest understanding of its meaning both in its

historical and literary contexts.  Historically, we have the oral

tradition of Stephen's martyrdom, likely associated with certain

indictments he had made of the temple leaders and perhaps the

fact that they put Jesus to death.  Historically, we also have

the time in which Acts was written a decade or so after Jerusalem

and the temple were destroyed.  Further, we have the perspective

of the author of Hebrews, a rough contemporary of the author of

Acts.  Although the emphases and thinking of the author of

25

Hebrews differed slightly from the perspective the author of Acts

took in his history, the author of Acts saw in him a relevant

model on which to base his portrait of Stephen.

Literarily, then, the author of Acts went about presenting

Stephen in these chapters.  Having planned Luke with Acts in

mind, he omitted in Luke 22:66-71 the story of the false

accusations against Jesus in Mark 14:57-59 and saved them instead

in relation to Stephen.  Then in keeping with good ancient

historiography, he fashioned Stephen's martyrdom speech both with

a view to Stephen's memory but most importantly with a view to

imply an explanation for the current state of Israel with both

city and temple destroyed.  Acts 7 is thus no general run through

the story of Israel but a presentation of key vignettes meant to

reflect its current situation.  And we suspect very strongly that

the author of Hebrews, or someone quite like him, helped the

author of Acts to present Stephen in a way that would speak

directly to his Christian audience some fifty years later.

26