Acts 7:44

The tabernacle of witness - The “tent” or “tabernacle” which Moses was commanded to make. It was called a tabernacle of “witness,” or of “testimony,” because it was the visible witness or proof of God’s presence with them; the evidence that he to whom it was devoted was their protector and guide. The name is given either to the “tent,” to the two tables of stone, or to the ark; all of which were “witnesses,” or “evidences” of God’s relation to them as their Lawgiver and guide, Exo 16:34; Exo 25:16, Exo 25:21; Exo 27:21; Exo 30:6, Exo 30:36; Exo 31:18, etc.; Num 1:50, Num 1:53. The two charges against Stephen were, that he had spoken blasphemy against Moses or his Law, and against the temple, Act 6:13-14. In the previous part of this defense he had shown his respect for Moses and his Law. He now proceeds to show that he did not design to speak with disrespect of the temple, or the holy places of their worship. He therefore expresses his belief in the divine appointment of both the tabernacle Act 7:44-46 and of the temple Act 7:47.

According to the fashion ... - According to the pattern that was shown to him, by which it was to be made, Exo 25:9, Exo 25:40; Exo 26:30. As God showed him “a pattern,” it proved that the tabernacle had his sanction. Against that Stephen did not intend to speak.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Act 7:44-47. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness — Greek, του μαρτυριου, of the testimony. The two tables of stone, on which the ten commandments were written, were most properly the testimony, as being a constant testimony of the relation between God and Israel: hence the ark, which contained them, is frequently called the ark of the testimony; and the whole tabernacle in this place, the tabernacle of the testimony. This, says Stephen, was with our fathers in the wilderness, a tabernacle made in all respects as God had appointed, who, speaking unto Moses, commanded him to make it according to the fashion, or model, that he had seen — Namely, in the mount, Exo 25:40. “As Stephen had been accused of blaspheming the temple, he, with great propriety, takes occasion to speak of their sacred places with due reverence, as raised by special direction from God; and yet corrects that extravagant regard for them, and confidence in them, which the Jews entertained.” — Doddridge. Which our fathers, that came after — Or rather, as διαδεξαμενοι more properly signifies, having received; brought in with Jesus — That is, with Joshua, when he led them over Jordan; into the possession of the Gentiles — Into the land which the Gentiles possessed before. So that God’s favour is not a necessary consequence of inhabiting this land. All along Stephen intimates two things: 1st, That God always loved good men in every land. 2d, That he never loved bad men even in this. Unto the days of David — That is, the tabernacle continued for many ages, even unto David’s time, to be the resort of the pious worshippers in Israel; above four hundred years before there was any thought of building a temple. David indeed having found favour before God, desired — Greek, ητησατο, petitioned, this further blessing, on which his heart was set; even to have the honour to find a tabernacle — Or a dwelling more stable and splendid; for the God of Jacob — But he did not obtain his petition. For, as he had been a man of war, and had shed much blood, God would not permit him to build the temple. He laid a plan for it, however, and consecrated a considerable part of the spoils which he had taken from the enemy toward erecting it. But God remained without any temple till Solomon built him a house — Which, till the reign of that prince, he never had commanded or permitted to be done. Observe how wisely the word house is used here, rather than the word temple, with respect to what follows.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

IV. The Transition from the old Tabernacle to the Temple under Solomon, Act_7:44-50.

As Stephen was accused of blaspheming the temple, so he now shows both that the building of the temple was a great change from the old order of things, and that Solomon, the very builder of the temple, denied that any locality could circumscribe or fix the Deity itself. To maintain, therefore, that the divine worship is to spread itself away from one spot is no blasphemy, but Strictly accordant with Scripture and the Divine nature.

44. Tabernacle of witness—The tabernacle built by Moses and carried through the wilderness lasted probably until the time of David. It was a movable structure, after whose model the temple was built. (See note on Mat_21:12.) In the Hebrew language the word signifying to meet or to congregate or constitute, and the word signifying to testify, closely resemble each other, and so this tabernacle was called both the tabernacle of the congregation and (by the Septuagint translators) the tabernacle of testimony or witness. It was called the former because the congregations of Israel gathered to it; it was called the latter because it contained the covenant by which God testified himself as the God of Israel.

As he had appointed, speaking unto Moses—More clearly, As he who spoke unto Moses had appointed.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ III. The third part of the discourse, embracing the period extending from the post-Mosaic age, to that of Stephen

Act_7:44-53

Our fathers had33 the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking34 [who spake] unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion [pattern]that he had seen. 45Which also our fathers that came after35 [fathers, baring received it] brought in with Jesus into the possession [with Joshua, when they took possession] of the Gentiles, whom God drave [thrust] out before the face of our fathers,unto the days of David;46Who found favour before God, and desired to [asked that hemight] find a tabernacle [dwelling-place] for the God36 of Jacob. 47But Solomon builthim a house. 48Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples37 [in that which is]made with hands;’ as saith the prophet, 49Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what [kind of, ποῖον] house will ye build [for] me? saith the Lord: or what [which] is the place of my rest? 50Hath not my hand made all these things?51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart38 and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52Which [one] of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of [who foretold] the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have39 been [become] now the betrayers andmurderers: 52[Ye] Who have received the law by the disposition [law as regulations] of angels, and have not kept it.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act_7:44. a. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness.—The original term, אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, [e. g. Num_16:18-19], is translated by the Septuagint, and here also, σκηνή τοῦ μαρτυρίου. As the precise meaning of מוֹעֵד is not by any means positively established, the assertion (de Wette, Meyer) that the derivation of the word [by the Sept.] from עֵד ,עוּד, is erroneous, possesses no decisive authority. It is still a matter of doubt whether the term should be taken in the sense of “tent of assembly,” or “tent of revelation (witness, testimony).” [According to the current interpretation, the word is derived from the root יָעַד, and the term is regarded as equivalent to “tabernacle of the congregation,” or “tent of assembly.” Robinson: Lex. Old Test.].—A σκηνή is mentioned both in the foregoing, and in the present verse; in the former, it is that of an idol, in the present, that of the true God. Such appears to be the relation of the two verses to each other, although it is not the speaker’s intention to give special prominence to the contrast presented by an idolatrous worship, on the one hand, and a worship acceptable to God, oh the other. It is rather the sanctuary itself, to which he refers in this portion of the discourse, Act_7:44-50. The sanctuary was, at first, the sacred tabernacle, in the wilderness, and; subsequently, in Canaan; from the time of Solomon, it was the temple, the holy house, ver 47.

b. As he had appointed who spake [marg.] unto Moses.—The sanctity of the tabernacle is here demonstrated by the fact that God gave explicit directions to Moses respecting the manner in which it should be made, namely, “after the pattern which was shewed” to Moses on Mount Sinai, Exo_25:9; Exo_25:40. Thus, the sacred tabernacle, together with its “instruments,” was made with hands, or, was a human work, it is true; but at the same time, it was a sanctuary prepared by God’s express command, and made in accordance with a divine ideal and primordial type. On this point Philo (Life of Moses, III. Op. ed. Mangey, II. 146) expresses himself as follows: As to the construction Moses had been thus instructed: τῶν μελλόντων ἀποτελεῖσθαι σωμάτων ἀσωμάτους ἰδέας τῇ ψυχῇ θεωρῶν, πρὸς ἃς ἔδει, καθάπερ ἀπʼ ἀρχετύπου γραφῆς καὶ νοητῶν παραδειγμάτων αἰσθητὰ μιμήματα ἀπεικονισθῆναι. [The following translation is given in the edition of 1613, Lib. III. Acts 515: Placuit igitur tabernaculum erigi, cujus apparatum ex oraculis in monte Moses didicerat, futuri ædificii contemplatus ideas incorporeas, ad quarum exemplar intelligibile oportebat designari sensibiles imagines.”—Tr.]

Act_7:45. Which also our fathers, having received it [marginal rendering], brought in, etc.—The sacred tent continued to be the sanctuary, not merely in the wilderness, but also in the land of Canaan, until the age of David and Solomon. The words οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν, refer, as the connection shows, to another generation of the fathers, namely, the contemporaries of Joshua, who came with him into the country and occupied it. [Jesus, here, as in Heb_4:8, is the Septuagint form of Joshua, and retained in the Engl. version.—Tr.]. Still, the words μετὰ Ἰησοῦ do not so belong to οἱ πατ. ἡμῶν, as if they were intended to define the age of the latter with precision, as, in that case they would necessarily be preceded by the article [i.e. οἱ μετὰ]; they belong, strictly speaking, to the verb εἰςήγαγον. Διαδεξάμενοι is not equivalent to successores, neither is it substituted for the adverb afterwards [postea, deinceps (Wolf.)], but conveys the thought that this generation had obtained possession of the tabernacle, as a sacred and precious inheritance received from the fathers. The words ἐν κατασχέσει τῶν ἐθν., in so far lack precision as they term, when literally understood, the act of taking possession of the territory which belonged to the conquered and expelled nations [ἐθνῶν], the act of taking possession of the nations themselves. The specification of the time: ἕως τῶν ἡμερῶν Δαυΐδ, does not belong to, ἔξωσεν, as Kuinoel and Baumgarten assert, but to ἐιςήγαγον. According to the former construction, the sense would be, that the work of expelling the Canaanitish nations had continued until the days of David: But the expulsion of those nations is treated as a subordinate point in the present passage, which refers mainly to the sanctuary and its history. If the words are, on the other hand, connected with εἰςήγαγον, they imply that the tabernacle had been brought with Joshua into the country, and had continued to be the sole sanctuary of Israel from that period to the age of David.

Act_7:46-47. Who—desired … of Jacob.—It is an arbitrary procedure, as far as the principles of lexicography are concerned, and also unnecessary, to assert (Kuinoel) that ᾐτήσατο is to be taken in the sense of desiderabat [instead of the more accurate version: asked for himself (J. A. Alex.; Hack.).—Tr.]. For, even if a petition of such a nature, addressed by David in prayer to God, is not found in the sacred narrative, analogous sentiments do occur in Psalms 132 (or Psalms 131, according to the Septuagint). The first five verses doubtless occurred to the mind of Stephen at the moment, e. g. Act_7:5 : ἕως οὖ εὔρω τόπον τῷ ιουρίῳ, σκήνωμα τῷ θεῷ Ἰακώβ. The word σκήνωμα, as contradistinguished from σκηνή, designates a fixed and permanent dwelling-place, and here refers, as the connection shows, to a dwelling-place that is worthy of the God of Jacob, i.e. to an appropriate sanctuary. This urgent petition of David, which, in Psalms 132 is expressed in the form of a vow, Was not granted by God to the king. [Comp. 2 Sam. Acts 7]. Stephen does not here distinctly state this fact, but assumes that it is well-known to his hearers. It is also worthy of observation that the thought or wish respecting the building of a temple, and the subsequent completion of the building, are alike represented, in Act_7:46 and Act_7:47, as a thought of man and a work of man, and that neither was the result of a divine appointment and command, or of divine directions concerning the details, as in the case of the tabernacle, Act_7:44.

Act_7:48-50. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not, etc.—The train of thought is the following:—Although Solomon was successful in substituting for the portable tent a well-built house, a magnificent temple, as the sanctuary, still the temple can never be regarded as the truly appropriate and exclusive dwelling-place of God, to which his presence and the manifestation of himself are restricted. The particle of negation οὐκ after ἀλλά, is placed emphatically at the head of the sentence, as a protest against the delusive and superstitious opinions of the Jews respecting the dignity of the temple. The terms ̔ο ὕψιστος and χειροποίητα present a contrast. The former, corresponding to the conception expressed by ὁ θεὸς τῆς δόξης, sets forth the infinite glory and grandeur of God; the latter (which the Septuagint has even employed in the place of the word sanctuary, i.e. that of Moab, in Isa_16:12, and elsewhere applies to idols), is purposely used here without the word ναοῖς. It thus contrasts the general conception of a human work with that of the Creator himself, and classes the Jewish delusion respecting the temple with the superstition that is connected with idols. The prophetic words to which Stephen appeals, Isa_66:1-2, are quoted by him from the Septuagint with unimportant verbal variations. They express the following thought:—The whole creation, vast as it is, is the dwelling-place of God, and therefore no house built by men can be his exclusive abode, or contain him. As He is himself the Creator of all things, he cannot need the aid of man in preparing the place of his rest. When Stephen repeats this prophetic passage, he indirectly furnishes a divine declaration which sanctions any change of the temple-worship that might be effected through Jesus and the Gospel. He contends against the delusion that the temple was, in an absolute sense, the necessary and only place in which God could be acceptably worshipped. [Comp. also Solomon’s words, 1Ki_8:27; 2Ch_6:1-2; 2Ch_6:18, and Paul’s, Act_17:24.]. But he does not, as Baur and Zeller conjecture, intend to speak disparagingly of the temple itself, or of the worship offered in it. Not a trace of such a purpose can be found in his words, neither does the tenor or general plan of his discourse authorize the supposition that he was influenced by such a motive.

Act_7:51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised, etc.—The speaker very suddenly changed the tone in which he had hitherto addressed his hearers. He had sketched the ancient history of the people, but now speaks of his contemporaries. He had spoken of earlier manifestations and interpositions of God, but now directs attention to the Person of Christ. He had referred to former generations of Israel, but now dwells with a searching glance on his own times. He had hitherto spoken in an unimpassioned style, but now addresses his hearers with irrepressible indignation and a flaming zeal. His historical statements had mainly served as means, for vindicating himself, in view of the charges advanced by his enemies, and had only indirectly referred to the errors of his contemporaries. But his language now assumes an aggressive character, and, with all the fervor of a prophet, he accuses his hearers of grievous sins which they had committed. The transition is sudden, but by no means unnatural, for even while the speaker repeated the history of former generations, his glance was fixed on his own age. There is, consequently, no reason for imagining that any external cause, any interruption on the part of the audience, such as angry outcries or threatening gestures, induced Stephen to adopt this severe style of address (Kuinoel; Olshausen).—The humiliating accusation is frequently repeated in the Old Testament, that the Israelites were stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears [e. g., Exo_32:9; Exo_33:3; Lev_26:41; Deu_10:16; Eze_44:7, that is, “rebellious, like a stubborn ox.” (J. A. Alex.).—“Circumcision, viewed as a purificatory rite (Sept. περικαθαριεῖ=מָל, Deu_30:6), and as a consecration, is figuratively ascribed to the heart and the ear.” (de Wette). “The sense is: They are men whose mind and understanding are as rude as those of pagans”. (Meyer).—Tr.].—It is here Stephen’s main purpose to rebuke the deep-rooted unwillingness of the Jews to be governed by the Spirit of God, and to submit to his will. Hence he produces the positive charge (which is designedly expressed with great emphasis in the phrase: ἀντιπίπτειν τῷ πν.τ. ἁ.) that they violently resisted the guidance of the Spirit of God. The reproach is, at the same time, so expressed, as to apply to the entire people of Israel, in all their successive generations: ὡς οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν καί ὑμεῖς, and, ὑμεῖς ἀεὶ—ἀντιπίπτετε.

Act_7:52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?—The proof of the charge: ἀεὶ τ. πν. τ. ἁ. αντιπίπτετε, is given. Their fathers persecuted and slew the prophets who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, yea, persecuted them all without exception (τίνα—οὐκ ἐδ.). Their ancestors had persecuted and slain those men who foretold that the Messiah would come, ὁ διίκαιος, He who would be the only and the perfectly Righteous One, and who would “justify many.” Isa_53:11. All that the fathers had done to the prophets—Stephen continues—the men of this generation have done to Him who was promised by the prophets. Of Him ye have become the betrayers and murderers.—They became προδόται (corresponding to ἐδίωξαν), by accusing Him, and delivering Him into the power of Pilate—and φονεῖς (corresponding to ἀπέκτειναν) by crucifying Him.

Act_7:53. [Ye] who have received the law, εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων, i.e., that it might be revered and obeyed, as consisting of regulations made by angels (legem eo habendam loco, quo habendæ essent constitutiones angelorum; Bengel). Meyer’s objection to this interpretation (namely, that it cannot be correct, since Israel received the law as containing commandments, not of angels, but of God) confounds Stephen’s words with those that are employed in Exod. Acts 2. [Act_7:1; Act_7:19; Act_7:22, where the angels are not mentioned]. The interpretation: legem ab angelis promulgatam, arbitrarily disowns the proper signification of εἰς, and confounds it with ἐν [See Winer: Gram. N. T., § 32. 4, ult.; § 49. a. ult.; § 50. 4. b.—Tr.]. It is certainly true that the original Hebrew does not speak of the coöperation of the angels at the giving of the law; but their presence and operations on that occasion are mentioned in rabbinic traditions, of which a trace may already be discovered in the Septuagint, Deu_33:2 [the words: “from his right hand went a fiery law for them”, being there rendered: ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετ̓ αὐτοῦ.—In Jos. Ant. xv. 5. 3, Herod says: “We have learned our—doctrines and—laws from God δἰ ἀγγέλων.” “The key to the right rendering seems to be the similar expression in Gal_3:19—διαταγεὶς—announced by angels; εἰς διατ.ἀγ., at the injunction of angels.” (Alford). Robinson, in Lex. ad verb. translates: “according to (by) the arrangements of angels.” See also Heb_2:2.—Tr.].—The relative οἵτινες always generalizes, by extending that which applies to one subject to many others of the same kind, or by evolving a general conception from a particular subject. Thus, in the case before us, the present generation of the people of God is combined by Stephen with all that preceded it, and all are placed in the same category by him—all are found to be alike disobedient to the law which they had received from God. This prominent feature in the character of the nation, is both the original cause, and also furnishes an explanation, of the conduct observed by the Israelites towards Jesus and his followers.

General Remarks [referred to in Exeg. note on Act_7:2-3. a.—Tr.].—a. The main design of the discourse.—Interpreters have, at all times, differed widely in their statements of the general tenor of this discourse, as well as of its relation to the offences with which Stephen was charged, and to the course of history in general. Erasmus has, no doubt, expressed the real sentiments of many interpreters, when he says: Multa inesse, quæ non ita multum pertinere videantur ad id, quod instituit. But Bengel is fully justified when he replies: Quamquam non ponit enuntiationes enuntiationibus adversariorum directe contradicentes, tamen ad omnia nervose respondet. There is, at all events, no reason to suppose, as Kuinoel does, that Stephen had not yet reached his main argument when he was interrupted by the tumultuous cries of his hearers, and that he was hastily executed before he had completed his discourse. Dr. Baur suggested subsequently (De orat. hab. a Steph. cons., 1829) that the following was the theme of the discourse:—The more gloriously God manifested his grace to Israel, even from the beginning, the more perverse and ungrateful was the conduct of the people. This proposition is strictly true, but it applies only to the Mosaic age, Act_7:17 ff.; whereas not one word occurs in the part which refers to the patriarchial period, Act_7:2-16, with the sole exception of Act_7:9, which could suggest such a thought. Hence Luger (Zweck, etc., d. Rede. d. Steph., 1838), and Baumgarten (I. 131 ff.; 142), have endeavored to find the leading thought of the discourse elsewhere. The former supposes it to be the subordination of the law to the promise; the latter finds it in the progressive character of divine revelation under the old covenant. However, Stephen does not assign such a prominent position to either of these thoughts, as to authorize us to suppose that he had chosen it as the theme of his discourse. But there is a view presented by him which reveals his main design in speaking. In striking contrast with the dark shadow of man’s unbelief and disobedience to the Spirit of God, and to the men whom he sent,—a deep shadow that falls on Israel,—Stephen presents to our view the brightness of the δόξα of God, Act_7:2. He dwells on the unlimited glory and the absolute independence of God, by virtue of which he revealed himself from the beginning, at any time or place, in any form or order, according to his own pleasure, not being restricted either to the temple as the exclusive place of his presence, or to the land of Canaan, as the only region suited for his revelations. It surely cannot be regarded as a merely accidental circumstance, that Mesopotamia (Act_7:2), Egypt (Act_7:9-10; Act_7:22; Act_7:34; Act_7:36), the desert of Arabia (Act_7:30 ff., Act_7:36; Act_7:38), together with the promised land itself (ver 4 ff., 45), are mentioned as the regions in which God had spoken with the fathers, and revealed himself in his miracles. It is, accordingly, the main design of Stephen’s discourse to combine both a vindication of himself, and also a sharp rebuke of his hearers with explanatory statements of the history of the people of Israel. The past is the mirror in which he views the present; it exhibits distinctly as well the glory and absolute sovereignty and liberty of God in revealing himself, as also the insensibility and perverseness of Israel, both in earlier ages and also at the present time. The latter thought is expressed at the close, Act_7:51 ff., in the form of a direct and emphatic reproach.

b. The historical genuineness of the discourse. It is only very recently that the entire discourse has been represented as supposititious, and written, irrespectively of historical facts, at a later period, (Baur, Zeller, and B. Bauer). The argument which has been adduced in support of this opinion, (namely, that the skill with which the materials are selected and arranged, betrays that it is an elaborate production of the pen), is by no means adapted to sustain it. The peculiar character of the discourse, on the contrary, (which has given rise to a very great diversity of opinions respecting its leading theme and real purpose,) is precisely an argument in favor of its genuineness. For, if it were spurious, and had been composed with only a general reference to the circumstances, it would, without doubt, have replied with far more fulness and directness to the charges brought against Stephen, than it does in its present form. It has also been represented as altogether inconceivable that such a discourse should have been preserved, and handed down to a succeeding age with entire accuracy and precision. To this objection it may be replied: (1) Such a discourse could be the more easily retained in the memory, precisely on account of the historical matter which it presents, and the chronological order which it observes.—(2) No circumstance could have operated more powerfully than the martyrdom of Stephen, which immediately followed the delivery of the discourse, in inducing the Christians of his day to remember his last words with deep feeling, to repeat them with devout and grateful sentiments, and, indeed, to commit them to writing at an early period, for the sake of preserving his dying testimony. It was in this spirit that, at a later period, the narratives concerning other martyrs were carefully written. It cannot be a source of embarrassment to us, that we do not know the name of the writer who first of all recorded the discourse. It is obvious that he was a Christian, and not an enemy; it is not, in itself, an improbable circumstance, that some Christians may have been present as hearers at the meeting of the Sanhedrin, when the discourse was delivered. Still, even if Saul was also present at the time, as we have every reason to believe, the conjecture that he, rather than any other person, should have committed the discourse to writing (Baumgarten, I. 129), is not supported by a single consideration that is of weight.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. If the image of God himself could become an idol [Act_7:41, note], the temple, the house of God, may also, by a gross perversion, become the medium through which man is conducted to superstitious and idolatrous practices. The tendency of fallen man to occupy himself with created objects, is here plainly seen. When he finds an object that reminds him of God, that guides him to God, and that aids him in his devotions, he is apt to regard it as possessing an independent existence of its own, as invested with a holy and sanctifying power, and as a pledge of communion with God, and of eternal life. He now reveres it above its just claims, and thus it ultimately takes precedence even of the living and personal God himself. At this point superstition and idolatry appear in a fully developed form. Such an object was the temple, when the Israelites placed all their trust and confidence in it, and exclaimed: “The temple of the Lord is here [are these].” Jer_7:4. Such an object even the Church may become, that is, not merely the sacred edifice, but the Church of Christ itself, whenever ecclesiasticism is more highly exalted, even if unconsciously, than Christianity, and whenever the living Christ and a living communion with him are reduced to a subordinate rank. It is always appropriate, in such cases, to warn and admonish men, and to remind them in the most impressive manner, of their duty to worship God in spirit and in truth, to offer him the worship of the heart, and seek a living communion with him. It was in this manner that the ancient prophets bore witness, and rebuked the people; Stephen, who quotes the prophets, adopts the same course, in the present case. So, too, the Reformation was a return to the only acceptable mode of worshipping God, i.e., in spirit and in truth. And it is even now needful to repeat the warning, to guard men against superstitious practices and the deification of χειροποίητα, and teach them to beware of the cry: “Lo, here is Christ, or there.” Mat_24:23.

2. The unity which is observable in the history of revelation, is admirably illustrated in the discourse of Stephen, with respect both to God and to man. God had formerly given promises; he now fulfils them. He had formerly sent his servants, the prophets, whose principal duty was no other than that of announcing the Messiah who was to come (Act_7:52, comp. with Act_7:37). The Just One, who was promised, has now come. But men resist the Spirit of God, and the counsel of his grace; the fathers persecuted, and even slew those men of God, the prophets; and, finally, their children and descendants betrayed and murdered that Just One. They received, but did not obey the law and the word of God (λόγια ζῶντα). To them the offer of grace in Jesus is made; but they reject alike that offer and the kingdom of God. If the fathers did not keep the law in its spirit, their descendants imitate their example with respect to the Gospel and the grace that came by Jesus Christ.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Act_7:44. According to the fashion that ha had seen.—God has made religion on earth and man’s worship of him, conformable to the religion of heaven, which is the true pattern; Mat_6:10, “Thy will … in heaven.” (Quesn.)

Act_7:45. Whom God drave out.—All uncleanness must be removed from the heart which is to become the abode of God, even as the Canaanites were expelled when Israel entered in; 2Ti_2:21. (Starke).—Be of good cheer, ye evangelical heralds! Carry forth the witness of the word of Jesus into heathen lands with confidence. God will there drive out heathenism before your face, and raise up Christians! (id.).

Act_7:46-47. David desired … Solomon built.—David was a type of Christ, who, in his humiliation, “prepared abundantly,” by the store of his merits, for the building of his church; (1Ch_22:5.). Solomon was a type of Christ in his state of exaltation, building up his church with materials that were purchased with his blood; Eph_2:21. (Quesn.).—The temple of Christ is built in the heart of him alone who loves peace [Solomon, i.e. pacific.]. (Starke).

Act_7:48. The Most High dwelleth not in temples.—What materials does the Lord employ in building his church? I. Not gold and silver (earthly power and splendor); II. Not wood and stone (the religion of mere decorum, an external, mechanical service); III. Not paper and parchment (external creeds and modes of church government); but, IV. Hearts that are endowed with life (established on Christ in faith, united together in love, and ripening in hope for heaven.).—Idolatry, not only without the pale of the church, but also in it, and by means of it. [See Doctr. No. 1, above.].—The divine right, and the human imperfections of the visible church.—The mode in which God builds his temple: I. In the church; II. In the hearts of men; III. In heaven.—The manner in which the Holy Spirit builds the temple of God: I. In the church; II. In the closet; III., In the communion of saints; IV. At the consummation of the kingdom of God. (Kapff, at the Eccl. Convention, 1857).—The true temple of God: I. The visible temple ought not to be undervalued, Act_7:46-47; II. The invisible temple ought not to be forgotten, Act_7:48-50.

Act_7:51. Ye … uncircumcised in heart and ears.—When the heart is uncircumcised, the ears are in the same condition. When our penitent hearers experience the power of the word of God in their hearts, they are willing to lend an ear to our words. But when they repel the word from their hearts, they also stop their ears, like the hearers of Stephen, Act_7:57. (Ap. Past.).

Act_7:52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?—The striking uniformity observable in the kingdom of God [see Doctr. No. 2, above]: I. On the part of God (unchanging grace and truth); II. On the part of man (continued blindness and hardness of heart).—We often extol the excellence and holiness of the founders of useful institutions, without, however, manifesting their spirit. (Quesn.).

Act_7:53. Who have received the law … not kept it.—The pagans, who have received the law taught by nature, are punished when they transgress it [Rom_1:20 ff; Rom_2:14-15]. Of how much sorer punishment are they worthy, who have received the law by the revelation of God, and, nevertheless, trample it under their feet! (Starke).

On the whole discourse of stephen.—The holy men of God of former ages, exhibited to posterity: I. As heralds, who proclaim aloud the grace and truth of God; II. As preachers of repentance, who address a degenerate race.—[Stephen’s discussions with the Jews (Act_6:9-10; Act_7:2-53): I. The causes which led to them: (a) His evangelical labors; (b) their ignorance and prejudices. II. The manner in which they were conducted: (a) On the part of Stephen; (b) on the part of the Jews. III. The virtual triumph of the truth: (a) Revealed in “the wisdom and the spirit by which Stephen spake” (Act_6:10); (b) and in the inability of the Jews to resist by argument (Act_6:10; Act_7:54; Act_7:57). IV. The results: (a) Revengeful feelings in the adversaries of the truth; (b) conviction produced in the minds of the candid. (The whole suggesting the following: (1) The repetition of such scenes in the subsequent history of religion; (2) the weapons which religion employs; (3) The guilt of those who reject religious truth; (4) The final decision of all disputes by the Judge of the living and the dead.—Tr.]

Footnotes:

[33]Act_7:44. a.—ἐν after ἧν in the textus receptus, is but feebly supported [by D. Ε. Syr., etc.], and may unhesitatingly be regarded as spurious. [Omitted in A. B. C. Cod. Sin., and by Lach., Tisch. and Alf.—Tr.]

[34]Act_7:44. b.—[For speaking, (Tynd.; Cranm.; Geneva; Rheims), the margin proposes the preferable version: who spake.—Tr.]

[35]Act_7:45.—[διαδεξάμενοι; for that came after (Cranmer), the margin offers the version (Tynd.; Geneva; Rheims): having received (i. e., it). “Διαδέχομαι—to receive through a series of persons, to receive by succession, to succeed to.” Robinson: Lex. N. T.—Alford translates: “having inherited it,” and regards that came after as “ungrammatical;” Hackett: “having received;” J. A. Alexander: “receiving.”—Tr.]

[36]Act_7:46.—The reading τῷ Θεῷ [of text. rec. after σκήνωυα] is genuine, according to the testimony of A. C. E., of all the ancient versions, and of the fathers; Lachmann, on the other hand, prefers τῷ οῖκῳ, which is found, it is true, in B. D. H., but does not equally well suit the context. [οἴκῳ occurs also in Cod. Sin. (original); a later hand substituted Θεῷ.—Tr.]

[37]Act_7:48.—The textus receptus, following the authority of H, and several fathers, inserts after χειροποιήτοις the word ναοῖς, which is wanting in all the other MSS. of the first rank [A. B. C. D. and also Cod. Sin. Syr. Vulg., etc.], and is evidently an explanatory addition of a copyist. Bengel had already assigned this character to it. [Rejected by the recent editors; “a gloss from Act_17:24.” (de Wette).—Tr.]

[38]Act_7:51.—The plural, καρδίαις, is attested by A. C. D., [and also Cod. Sin.] it is true, and adopted by Lachmann, whereas the singular, τῇ καρδίᾳ, occurs only in E. H.; but the latter is, on the other hand, sustained by the ancient oriental versions [but not the Vulg.: cordibus], and by the majority of the fathers. The plural seems to be an alteration to suit, partly ἀπερίτμητοι which precedes, and partly the parallel term ὠσίν, which follows; the singular would scarcely have been substituted by later copyists for the plural, if the latter had been the original reading. [The sing. adopted by Tisch. and Alf.—Tr.]

[39]Act_7:52. ἐγένεσθε is, without doubt, the genuine reading [found in A. B. C. D. E., and adopted by Lach. Tisch., and Alf.], while γεγένησθε [of text. rec.] is supported by only a few of the oldest MSS. [H., etc.—Cod. Sin. exhibits εγενεσθαι.—Tr.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 7:44. Ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, the tabernacle of witness) So the LXX. for the Hebrew אהל מועד, Exo 27:21, etc.—κατὰ τὸν τύπον, according to the fashion) Heb 8:5, note. This ‘type’ was better than those ‘types’ (‘figures’), of which Act 7:43 speaks.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_7:44. Ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτ.] not a contrast to Act_7:43, for the bringing out of the culpability (hic ostendit Steph., non posse ascribi culpam Deo, Calvin, comp. Olshausen and de Wette) which there is nothing to indicate; but after the giving of the law (Act_7:38) and after the described backsliding and its punishment (Act_7:39-43), Stephen now commences the new section of his historical development,that of the tabernacle and of the temple,as he necessarily required this for the subsequent disclosure of the guilt of his opponents precisely in respect to this important point of charge.

The Hebrew אֹחֶל מוֹעֵד means tent of meeting (of God with His people), i.e. tent of revelation (not tent of the congregation, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 167), but is in the LXX., which the Greek form of this speech follows, incorrectly rendered by ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου (the tent in which God bears witness of Himself), as if derived from עֵד, a witness. For the description of this tabernacle, see Exodus 25-27 :

κατὰ τὸν τύπον ὃν ἑωρ.] see Exo_25:9; Exo_25:40. Comp. Heb_8:5, and thereon Lünemann and Delitzsch, p. 337 f.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 7:44 . Here again we notice that the first sanctuary of the fathers was not the temple, nor was it erected on holy ground, but ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ according to God’s direct command. ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτ .: it is possible that there was in the speaker’s mind a contrast to the σκηνή in Act 7:43 , but the connection is not clearly drawn out, ἀσυνδέτως , “ut in oratione concitatiore” (Blass). ἡ σ . τοῦ μαρτυρίου , “the tabernacle of the testimony”. The same phrase in LXX is used (incorrectly as Meyer noted) to translate the Hebrew tabernacle of the congregation or tabernacle of meeting, i.e. , of God with His people, cf. Exo 27:21 . But the tabernacle was justly called μαρτυρίου , because it contained “the ark of the testimony,” LXX, Exo 25:9 (Exo 25:10 ), κιβωτὸς μαρτυρίου and so frequently in the rest of the book, and Exo 31:18 , τὰς δύο πλάκας τοῦ μαρτυρίου . The tabernacle might properly be so called as a witness of God’s presence, and a testimony to the covenant between God and His people. See also Westcott on Heb 8:5 , additional note. διετάξατο , cf. Act 20:13 , Act 24:23 ; only in St. Luke and St. Paul in N.T., except once in Mat 11:1 ; in Gospel four times, in Acts four or five times, and frequent in LXX. Grimm compares disponere (verordnen). καθὼς δ . ὁ λαλῶν : “even as he appointed who spake,” R.V.; “per reverentiam appellatio siletur” Blass; cf. Exo 25:40 , Heb 8:5 . κατὰ τὸν τύπον , cf. Wis 9:8 , where the command is given to Solomon. μίμημα σκηνῆς ἁγίας ἢν προητοίμασας : “according to the figure,” L.V., i.e. , pattern, likeness, cf. Act 7:43 and Rom 5:14 . Again we see how far Stephen was from denying the divine sanction given to Moses for the tabernacle. In the thought thus implied lies the germ of Hooker’s great argument, Eccles. Pol. , iii., 11 (Plumptre).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That is, of the covenant.

Moses indeed erected a Tabernacle, but that was to call them back to that form which he had seen in the mountain.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness--which aggravated the guilt of that idolatry in which they indulged, with the tokens of the divine presence constantly in the midst of them.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 44. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness] That is, the tabernacle in which the two tables of stone written by the finger of God were laid up, as a testimony that he had delivered these laws to the people, and that they had promised to obey them. As one great design of St. Stephen was to show the Jews that they placed too much dependence on outward privileges, and had not used the law, the tabernacle, the temple, nor the temple service, for the purpose of their institution, he labours to bring them to a due sense of this, that conviction might lead to repentance and conversion. And he farther shows that God did not confine his worship to one place, or form. He was worshipped without any shrine in the times of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, c. He was worshipped with a tabernacle, or portable temple, in the wilderness. He was worshipped also in the fixed temple projected by David, but built by Solomon. He asserts farther that his infinite majesty cannot be confined to temples, made by human hands and where there is neither tabernacle nor temple, (in any part of his vast dominions,) he may be worshipped acceptably by the upright in heart. Thus he proves that neither tabernacle nor temple are essentially requisite for the true worship of the true God. Concerning the tabernacle to which St. Stephen here refers, the reader is requested to consult the notes, See Clarke on Ex 25:8, c., and the subsequent chapters.

Speaking unto Moses] ο λαλων, Who spake, as in the margin signifying the angel of God who spake to Moses, or God himself. See Ex 25:40.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

44. The tabernacle of witness. Stephen showeth here that the blame cannot be laid upon God, because the Jews polluted themselves with divers superstitions, as if God had suffered them to wander freely. For he saith that God had commanded how he would be worshipped by them. Whereupon it followeth that they were entangled in so many errors, because they would not follow that form which God had appointed. Although he girdeth [reprehendeth] them for two causes: Because, being not content with that rule alone which God had prescribed, they invented to themselves strange worships; secondly, because they had no respect unto the right end of the temple, and of the ceremonies which God had appointed. For whereas they ought to have been unto them exercises of the spiritual worship, they apprehended nothing but that which was carnal, according to their carnal nature; that is, they took the shadow for the body.

Therefore we see that the Jews were first reprehended for their boldness, for because that being not content with the plain word of God, they were carried away after their own inventions. Secondly, they are reproved for the preposterous abuse of the true and sincere worship; because they followed the flesh instead of the Spirit. They had, saith he, the tabernacle of witness. Therefore it was their own wantonness and rashness only which caused them to sin. For seeing they were well taught what was the right way and order of worshipping God, all cloak and color of ignorance was taken away.

Which thing is worth the noting. For seeing God doth after a sort bridle us, when he maketh his will known unto us, if after we have received his commandment we turn aside, either unto the right hand or to the left, we be twice guilty; because the servant which knoweth his master’s will, and doth it not, shall suffer more stripes: This is the first mark whereby the Holy Spirit doth distinguish all bastardly and corrupt worshippings from the true and sincere worship. Yea, (to speak more briefly,) the first difference between true worship and idolatry is this: when the godly take in hand nothing but that which is agreeable to the Word of God, but the other think all that lawful which pleaseth themselves, and so they count their own will a law; whereas God alloweth nothing but that which he himself hath appointed. To this end serveth the word witness.

The Hebrew word [מד] (moed) signifieth, indeed, an appointed place and time, or an assembly of men; but the reason expressed in Moses showeth that there is another cause why it is so named. For in Moses this is oftentimes repeated, “I will meet with you there.” Therefore the tabernacle was consecrated by the covenant and the word of the Lord, and his voice was heard there continually, that it might be distinguished from all profane places.

According to the form which he had seen. This is referred unto the second point which I have touched; for it may be that he which shall use the ceremonies only which God appointed, shall notwithstanding worship God amiss. For God careth not for external rites, save only inasmuch as they are of the heavenly truth; therefore God would have the tabernacle to be made like unto the heavenly figure, that the Jews might know that they were not to stay still in the external figures. Furthermore, let him which is disposed read my Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and he shall see what that figure, whereof mention is made Exodus 25, (Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5,) did signify. Stephen doth only briefly tell them in this place that the worship which God commanded the Jews is spiritual, and that they, according to their carnal blockishness, were evil and false interpreters; therefore, as we have said, that God alloweth no worship but that which is grounded in his commandment, so we are taught here that it is requisite in the right use of the commandment, that the spiritual truth be present; which thing being granted, it was the like question which we said did consist principally in this issue, whether the shadows ought to yield to the body or not. Whereas Moses is said to have seen a form or figure, the Spirit of God signifieth thereby that it is unlawful for us to invent forms at our pleasure; but that all our senses must be set upon that form which God showeth, that all our religion may be formed according to it. The word figure signifieth here, in this place, the principal pattern, which is nothing else but the spiritual truth.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(44) The tabernacle of witness.—The word was applied by the LXX. to the Tabernacle, as in Num_9:15; Num_17:7, as containing the Two Tables of Stone, which were emphatically the testimony of what was God’s will as the rule of man’s conduct (Exo_25:16; Exo_25:21; Exo_31:18). It should be noted that the LXX. gives the same rendering for the words which the English version translates as the “tabernacle of the congregation,” e.g., in Exo_29:10; Exo_33:7; Num_16:18-19.

As he had appointed, speaking unto Moses.—The answer to the charge lay in these words. Stephen admitted and asserted the divine sanction that had been given to Tabernacle and Temple. What he denied was that that sanction involved perpetuity. It is not without interest to note in the thought thus implied the germ of Hooker’s great argument in the Third Book of his Ecclesiastical Polity (c. 11).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

44. Our fathers had the tabernacle of Witness [of the testimony] in the wilderness] The name is found first Exo_38:21. The ark is also called the ark of the testimony, as Exo_25:22, &c., and the name was no doubt given because all the contents of the ark, which was the most sacred part of the Tabernacle fittings, were testimonies to God’s rule or to His power exerted for His people. Aaron’s rod, the pot of manna, and the tables of the Law were all stored up therein. And this ark above which God made His presence seen was in the wilderness and moving from place to place.

as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, &c.] Better, even as he had appointed who spake, &c. For the command see Exo_25:9; Exo_25:40; Exo_26:30; Exo_27:8.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness,.... The Ethiopic version adds, "of Sinai"; there it was that the tabernacle was first ordered to be built, and there it was built, and set up; which was a sort of a portable temple, in which Jehovah took up his residence, and which was carried from place to place: of it, and its several parts and furniture, there is a large account in Exo 25:1. It is sometimes called Ohel Moed, or "the tabernacle of the congregation", because there the people of Israel gathered together, and God met with them; and sometimes "the tabernacle of the testimony", or "witness", as here; Exo 38:21 Num 1:50 because the law, called the tables of the testimony, and the testimony, it being a testification or declaration of the will of God, was put into an ark; which for that reason is called the ark of the testimony; and which ark was placed in the tabernacle; and hence that took the same name too. The Jewish writers say (k), it is so called,

"because it was a testimony that the Shekinah dwelt in Israel'';

or as another (l) expresses it,

"it was a testimony to Israel that God had pardoned them concerning the affair of the calf, for, lo, his Shekinah dwelt among them.''

This tabernacle, in which was the testimony of the will of God, what he would have done, and how he would be worshipped, and which was a token of his presence, was among the Jewish fathers whilst they were in the wilderness; and is mentioned as an aggravation of their sin, that they should now, or afterwards, take up and carry the tabernacle of Mo. The Alexandrian copy reads, "your fathers"; the sense is the same.

As he had appointed; that is, as God appointed, ordered, and commanded:

speaking unto Moses, Exo 25:40

that he should make it according to the fashion he had seen; when in the Mount with God; Heb 8:5 for it was not a bare account of the tabernacle, and its vessels, which he hearing, might form an idea of in his mind; but there was a visible form represented to his eye, a pattern, exemplar, or archetype of the whole, according to which everything was to be made; which teaches us, that everything in matters of worship ought to be according to the rule which God has given, from which we should never swerve in the least.

(k) Baal Hatturim in Exod. xxxiii. 21. (l) Jarchi in ib.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.

Ver. 44. Our fathers had the tabernacle] He had made answer to their first accusation touching blasphemous words against the law. Now for the tabernacle and temple, he takes off that too; and showeth that God’s worship is not now to be tied to any one place more than another.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The tabernacle of the testimony, in which was the ark of the covenant, as they were made by Moses, which were moved from place to place with the Israelites in the wilderness; and which Jesus, or Josue, brought with the people, into the possessions of the Gentiles, that is, into the land of Chanaan, which had been before possessed by the Gentiles. --- This tabernacle, in which was kept the ark, remained with the Israelites till the time of David, or rather of Solomon, who built the temple. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The tabernacle of witness; called also the tabernacle of the congregation, Exo 33:7, because about it on all solemn occasions the people assembled. Here it is called the tabernacle of witness, because God here testified or witnessed his glorious presence; and especially because in it the ark of the covenant, the law, and the testimony were kept.

According to the fashion that he had seen, Exo 25:40; Heb 8:5. Moses was charged not to vary from the prescript; God being jealous of his own appointments. Now this is the rather spoken of by St. Stephen, that he might prove that the place where God was worshipped in had varied, and therefore night also now be changed.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The testimony for witness, A.V.; even as he appointed who spake for as he had appointed, speaking, A.V.; figure for fashion, A.V. Chrysostom calls attention to the mention of the wilderness, as showing that God"s presence and service were not confined to Jerusalem.

Vers. 44-53. Lessons of sacred history.

I THE SACRED PLACES OF ISRAEL.

1. The tabernacle. It was the tent of witness or of attestation; otherwise the "tabernacle of the assembly," or of the congregation. It was the visible center of Israel"s natural and spiritual life, the hearth and home of the people and the altar of God. He met with them to declare his will, to make known his laws, and they with one another as a community having a common weal. Religion is the true foundation of society. She is the" oldest and holiest tradition of the earth." When a house of God is erected in the wilds of Australia or of America, a center of civilization is fixed. It is the earthly representation of a heavenly reality. Moses made the tabernacle after a Divine archetype or model given to him. So worship on earth must ever aspire to and reflect the "life above," the risen life, the life of spiritual freedom and victory. God is ever saying to new societies, as to the new society in the desert, Make me a house after the pattern you have seen;" that is, have a place and a recognition in your life for the holiest ideals, the most sacred purposes of life.

2. The temple. Both the tabernacle and the temple were designed and constructed after the analogy of human dwellings; the tabernacle was but a more richly furnished tent. As the wealth and power of the nation increased, it was fitting that this should be reflected in the greater magnificence of the house of God; and as they became settled in the Holy Land, that the tent of the nomad should give way to the palace of a King. The temple of Solomon represented in its magnificence the greatness of the victorious kingdom of David. The outward institutions of religion in a people should keep pace with its growth in material prosperity. It is miserable that the church should be worse furnished than the ordinary dwellings of the worshippers, or that the minister of religion should fare in poverty while he supplies their spiritual wants. A rich man can surely afford to contribute as much to the pastor"s necessities as he pays in stipend to his cook. But there are higher truths. The tabernacle passed away; the temple, as Stephen had predicted, was to pass away; the spiritual verities eternally remain.

II THE TRUE SACRED PLACE IS EVER THE SOUL OF MAN.

1. The dwelling of God in visible temples is a symbolic thought, the reality to which it points is his intercourse with the soul of man. This was the great truth of prophetic teaching. The prophets were themselves living illustrations of it. God dwelt in them, spake through them, breathed upon them, turned their hearts unto his shrine, communed with them face to face, as a man with his friend. "The true Shechinah is man," said a great Father of the Church.

1. It is the spiritual indwelling which is at the heart of all true religion. When it is once grasped, great consequences follow. The priest and the ritual and the fixed place are no longer necessary. Every one who has a truth from God, and feels that it must be spoken, is a prophet. New oracles may be opened at any moment, new witnesses may arise, the truth find a fresh utterance from unexpected lips. If this truth be not recognized, the sacred building becomes an empty shell, the priests mere mummers, the ritual a pantomime. To believe that God can care for splendid temples and ritual, for themselves, is imbecile superstition. To believe that he values all the expressions of living and loyal hearts is a part of rational piety. But at the highest point of religious intelligence it may be well asked, "What need of temple, when the walls of the world are that?

2. The denial of the spiritual truth is the source of error, superstition, and crime. The earlier Jews killed the prophets, leaving posterity to find out their value and raise their monuments. Posterity did the like. The very men who waved the torch of truth more brightly in darkened ages, and those who had the best news to toll their times, were silenced and suppressed. The culmination of all was the betrayal and murder of Jesus. Such a story of miserable persecution and suicidal hatred of the good carries its deep and permanent warnings. How dishonest if we take occasion from this passage to form an idle opinion of the peculiar bigotry of the Jews! Was ever a corporation, a body with vested interests, or a Church, known to act otherwise towards the new truth and the new teacher? Has any great teacher in the Christian Church been received at first with welcome and owned as "sent from God"? Grudging toleration is the most he can expect. Only those who know that religion is an affair of the individual soul, not of the Church or the formal confession, will welcome him in whom religion now embodies itself, and through whom, in the decay of systems, God speaks with freshness and power to the world. J.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Our fathers had the tabernacle of the testimony - The testimony was properly the two tables of stone, on which the ten commandments were written. Hence the ark which contained them is frequently called the ark of the testimony; and the whole tabernacle in this place. The tabernacle of the testimony - according to the model which he had seen - When he was caught up in the visions of God on the mount.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The Tabernacle and the Temple:

v. 44. Our fathers had the Tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as He had appointed, speaking unto Moses that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.

v. 45. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

v. 46. who found favor before God, and desired to and a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.

v. 47. But Solomon built Him an house.

v. 48. Howbeit, the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands, as saith the prophet,

v. 49. Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool; what house will ye build Me? saith the Lord; or what is the place of My rest?

v. 50. Hath not My hand made all these things?

Stephen takes up the recital of the various houses of worship among the Jews with a purpose, since he wants to show that the dependence upon the forms of external worship are vain without true faith of the heart. That advantage the children of Israel in the wilderness had: they had the Tabernacle of the witness, where God Himself appeared and witnessed unto Himself. They had made it just as God, in His long conversation with Moses, Exo 25:40, had shown and commanded him. Moses had seen the pattern and plan of the entire tent and of all its appointments, and so it was made. And this same Tabernacle, the charge of which had been given to the people by Moses, they brought along with them as they entered into the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, when they occupied the former possession of the Gentiles. For the latter the Lord gradually drove out, expelled, before the children of Israel during a number of centuries, at the time of the judges and of Saul, until the time of David, the beloved of the Lord. At his time the conquest of the country was practically completed, the nations that had not been destroyed having been brought into subjection. David then, since he had found favor with God and was regarded very highly before Him, not only earnestly desired, but even asked to find, to build a lasting tabernacle to the Lord; and if the Temple had actually been of the value placed upon it by the later Jews, it might have been expected that God would have given His consent. But the Temple was not built by David, but by Solomon, 2Ch 6:7-9, But Stephen wants his hearers to remember that the presence of the highest God is not confined to any building, even though it were of the size and beauty of Solomon’s Temple. The builder of the first Temple had himself confessed as much, 1Ki 8:27; 2Ch 6:18. And the Prophet Isaiah had written in the same strain, (Isa 66:1 -. Heaven is to Me a throne and the earth a stool for My feet; what manner of house will ye build to Me, saith the Lord, or what place for My resting? Has not My hand made all this? The absolute foolishness of the Jews in pinning their faith to the Temple which had taken the place of Solomon’s, and upon the city in which it had been placed, could not have been brought out with greater force than in these words. The entire worship of the Jews had degenerated to become a mere observance of forms and customs, without life and true power. And Stephen had sketched the situation with a few strong, but fitting words, in order to present it to the eyes of his judges as it actually existed.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHURCH EDIFICES

44-50. Here Stephen alludes to the grand spiritual meaning of the portable tabernacle which God dictated to Moses on Sinai and the beautiful symbolic significance of Solomon’s temple. As the great majority of the Christian church at the present day, preachers and people, are living in the old dispensation, three thousand years behind the age, they awfully grieve the Holy Spirit by wasting the Lord’s money in costly spires, Gothic domes, memorial windows and other needless expenditures connected with their church edifices; e. g., St. Peter’s church at Rome cost two hundred millions of dollars, money enough to put the Bible in every home on the earth. It is the greatest monument of idolatry beneath the skies. How strange that Protestants are all doing their best to imitate the Roman Catholics in their needless expenditure and ornamentation of fine edifices. John Wesley said, “Whenever the Methodists get to building fine houses they are a ruined people.” One hundred thousand dollars of the Lord’s money are spent on a church edifice, while ten thousand are all we could possibly need, if pride were dead [and it must die before we go to heaven], leaving ninety thousand which would build a hundred churches for the poor heathens. Oh! what a victory for Jesus! No wonder the Holy Spirit has left the fine edifices. How strange that leading preachers will allude to Solomon’s temple as an argument for expenditure and ornamentation in a church edifice. In so doing they betray their ignorance and attitude, demonstrating to all luminous people that they are not only living away back in the dispensation of Moses, but shamefully ignorant of the beautiful symbolic truth revealed in the Bible. The reason Solomon’s temple contains so much gold and artistic ornamentation was because, belonging to the symbolic dispensation, it typified the sanctified heart of the Pentecostal age. So all of that gold and splendor do not mean that we are to have it unless we are stupid enough, like the crab, to go backward instead of forward; but it does mean positively and unequivocally that our hearts, “the temple of the Holy Ghost,” shall be sanctified wholly, literally radiant with the beauty of holiness.

48. “But the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:

49. “Heaven is my throne, and earth is the footstool of my feet: what house will ye build unto me, saith the Lord, or what shall be the place of my rest?

50. “Hath not my hand made all these things?” It is a historic fact that a hundred and fifty years of the Christian era had passed away, and all of the apostles long been playing on their golden harps, before a church edifice was ever built. We find Paul at Troas preaching in a third-story room. Like the holiness movement at the present day, the Apostolic churches used little rented rooms in garrets and cellars, private houses and green trees. An awful tide of idolatry is at the present day running in the line of church edifices. If the house should burn down and the preacher backslide a whole modern congregation would collapse spiritually in twenty-four hours and conclude they hadn’t a bit of religion. I am glad to see the holiness camps everywhere rendezvoused beneath the twinkling stars, amid the primeval forests, thus utilizing God’s primitive temples. How will we ever get the heathen saved if we do not quit sacrificing the Lord’s money to that hellish goddess, Pride, in needless expenditure on church edifices, thus using God’s money “to sacrifice to devils.” The whole compoodle is an insult to God, as Stephen here says. He does not want His money wasted in this way, thus mocking His majesty. When all of these fine edifices dwindle into insignificance and sink into total eclipse, contrasted with the broad temples of the firmament, roofed with the glittering constellations, lighted by the sun, moon and stars, floored with the beautiful green sward, jotted with Rocky Mountain pulpits, and ventilated by the salubrious breezes wafted from the saline billows of majestic oceans whose thundering waves respond to the music of roaring thunders enlivened by forked lightnings. Instead of settling down and going to sleep amid the idolatrous incantations of a fine edifice we are to utilize the meeting-house God has already built, which is the “whole world,” and our commission is “to every creature.”

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

44-50. Instead of either admitting or denying the charge of blasphemy against the temple, he undertakes to show the true religious value of that building. This he does, by first alluding to the movable and perishable nature of the tabernacle, which preceded the temple, and then, by showing, from the prophets, that the presence of God is not limited to temples made with hands. (44) " Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, saying to Moses that he should make it according to the pattern which he had seen; (45) which also, our fathers, having received, brought in with Joshua within the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David, (46) who found favor before God, and desired to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. (47) But Solomon built him a house. (48) Yet the Most High dwells not in temples made with hands, as says the prophet, (49) Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. What house will you build for me? says the Lord; or what is my place of rest? (50) Did not my hand make all these things? " By this statement, the speaker intrenches himself behind undisputed facts of their own history, and the sentiments of their own prophets, in reference to the temple, and is now ready to spring upon them the whole concealed power of the carefully arranged facts from the life of Moses and of Joseph.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

44–50. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness. The tabernacle built at Sinai, a witness of the Covenant (Num. 18:2), and of the good things to come (Heb. 8:5). This tabernacle, built by God's command, according to his pattern (Exod. 25:9, 40), they had rejected for “the tabernacle of Moloch” (verse 43).

Which also our fathers … brought in with Jesus. Joshua, the Hebrew form for Jesus. He and the later generations of Jews brought this tabernacle into Canaan when they conquered it.

Desired to find a tabernacle. David, who sought to build a permanent temple (2 Sam. 7:2; 1 Chron. 22:7). He was restrained from building the temple, and it was erected by Solomon (2 Chron. 6:7, 8).

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

the tabernacle of the testimony

The tent that housed the ark (a box) with the 10 commandments carved in stone inside it

our fathers, under Joshua, received the tabernacle and brought it with them

The phrase "under Joshua" means that their ancestors did these things in obedience to Joshua's direction. AT: "our fathers, in accordance with Joshua's instructions, received the tabernacle and brought it with them"

God took the land from the nations and drove them out before the face of our fathers

This sentence tells why the ancestors were able to take possession of the land. AT: "God forced the nations to leave the land before the face of our fathers"

God took the land ... before the face of our fathers

Here "the face of our fathers" refers to the presence of their ancestors. Possible meanings are 1) "As our ancestors watched, God took the land from the nations and drove them out" or 2) "When our ancestors came, God took the land from the nations and drove them out" (See: Metonymy)

the nations

This refers to the people who lived in the land before Israel. AT: "the people who previously lived here" (See: Metonymy)

drove them out

"forced them to leave the land"

a dwelling place for the God of Jacob

"a house for the ark where the God of Jacob could stay." David wanted a permanent place for the ark to reside in Jerusalem, not in a tent.

translationWords

ancestor

tabernacle

testimony

desert

Moses

tent

David

Jacob

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

44. Omit ἐν before τοῖς πατράσιν with אABCDHP.

44. ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, the tabernacle of the testimony. This name is found first in Exo 38:21 (Exo 37:19, LXX.). The ark is also called ἡ κιβωτὸς τοῦ μαρτυρίου, as in Exo 25:21, &c. The name was no doubt given because all the contents of the ark, which was the most sacred part of the tabernacle fittings, were testimonies to God’s rule or to His power exerted for His people. Aaron’s rod, the pot of manna, and the tables of the Law were all stored up therein. And this ark, above which God made His presence seen, was in the wilderness and moving from place to place.

ἦν τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν, our fathers had, &c. Concerning a historic religion, like that of the Jews, this was, or ought to have been, a weighty argument.

καθὼς διετάξατο ὁ λαλῶν, even as He had appointed who spake, &c. For the command see Exo 25:9; Exo 25:40; Exo 26:30; Exo 27:8.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

44. ἡ σκ. τ. μαρτ.] In opposition to the σκ. just mentioned: but also in pursuance of one of the great aims of the speech, to shew that holiness is not confined to locality or building. This part of his subject Stephen now enters on more particularly. The words ἡ σκ. τ. μαρτ. are the LXX rendering of אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד (Num 16:18, Num 16:19 al.) ‘the tabernacle of the assembly’ (or ‘congregation,’ E. V.). They apparently derived the latter word from עוּד, ‘testatus est,’ instead of יָעַד, ‘constituit.’

τύπον] (ref.): another contrast, cf. τύπους οὓς ἐποιήσατε, ver. 43.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.