Follow Not Your Forefathers (Part 6)
Passage To Study: Acts 7:45-50
45which our fathers, having received it in turn, also brought with Joshua into the land possessed by the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David, 46who found favor before God and asked to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. 47But Solomon built Him a house.
48“However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:
49 'Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
What house will you build for Me? says the LORD,
Or what is the place of My rest?
50 Has My hand not made all these things?'
(Verse 45) - Our fathers that came after - None of the generation that came out of Egypt were permitted to enter into the and of Canaan except Caleb and Joshua, (Num. 14:22-24; 32:11-12). Hence, it is said that their fathers who “came after,” that is, after the generation when the tabernacle was built. The Greek in the Septuagint version, however, here means, properly, “which also our fathers, having “received,” brought,” etc. The sense is not materially different. Stephen means that it was not brought in by that generation, but by the next. Again we should note that Stephen is keeping their tendency to reject the provision of God and follow their own heart and ideas at the expense of His. This they did in Moses case, and this they did in Jesus case.
With Jesus - This should have been rendered “with Joshua.” (as it is in most modern versions) Jesus is the Greek mode of writing the name “Joshua.” But the Hebrew name should by all means have been retained here, as also in Heb. 4:8.
Into the possession of the Gentiles - Into the land possessed by the Gentiles, that is, into the promised land then occupied by the Canaanites, etc. God had given them this land under the Abrahamic Covenant, and He then took them in to give them possession of it.
Whom God - That is, he continued to drive them out until the time of David, when they were completely expelled. Or it may mean that the tabernacle was in the possession of the Jews, and was the appointed place of worship, until the time of David, who desired to build him a temple. The Greek is ambiguous. The “connection” favors the latter interpretation, that is, that this is referring to the possession of the Tabernacle until the time of David and Solomon who built the Temple.
(Verse 46) - Who found favor - That is, God granted him great prosperity, and delivered him from his enemies. Did David never disobey God? No, He most certainly did disobey God! What, then is the difference between David and these leaders? The difference was David's heart! David loved god. He oftentimes went astray, but his heart was given over to God and He served the Lord with a true and faithful heart. There is no more encouraging character in the Bible, to we fleshly men, than David, the man after God's own heart.
To find a tabernacle - To prepare a permanent dwelling-place for the “ark,” and for the visible symbols of the divine presence. Hitherto the ark had been kept in the tabernacle, and had been borne about from place to place. David sought to build a house that would be permanent, where the ark might be deposited, (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chr. 22:7).
(Verse 47) - But Solomon - Built the temple. David was not permitted to do it because he had been a man of war, (1 Chr. 22:8). He prepared the principal materials for the temple, but Solomon built it, (1 Chr. 22: Compare 1 Kings 6). This, by the way, implies that either many of the wars that David fought were unjust, or that the manner in which he fought them was unacceptable. That David fought the enemies that God sent him to is indisputable. However, it may be that he was too zealous, or too eager to do such things and that that violent and aggressive bent was more than God wanted associated with His Temple. Or, it could be that David was one who fought and was over-zealous in the way in which he prosecuted his enemies, fighting his wars as the heathen fought theirs? It is unclear as to the particulars of why David, the fighter for God and God's people, was not allowed to build the Temple. We simply know that he was not permitted this great privilege, but that it fell to his son, Solomon.
(Verse 48) - Howbeit - But. Stephen was charged with speaking against the temple. He had now shown that he had due veneration for it, by his declaring that it had been built by the command of God. But he “now” adds that God does not need such a temple. The building of the Temple was an accommodation to the need and desire of man. It was not a function of need on god's part, nor was it even something that God truly “desired”. God allowed it, as He had allowed them a King in the first place, because they desired it, and because it was not completely contrary to His purpose, it was, as He allowed it, neutral in regard to His plan.
Heaven is his throne; the universe his dwelling-place; and “therefore” this temple might be destroyed. A new, glorious truth was to be revealed to mankind, that God was not “confined” in his worship to any age, or people, or nation. In entire consistency, therefore, with all proper respect for the temple at Jerusalem, it might be maintained that the time would come when that temple would be destroyed, and when God might be worshipped by all nations. This is the entire reason for bringing this up at this point in the conversation. The temple was never an integral part of the operation of God. It was an accommodation to man's wants and desires, to his perception of how God is, not to the reality of what God is. Therefore, that it should be destroyed or set aside was not big deal. It was never the real issue anyway! The Jews, however, had made the Temple the issue! It was the central pillar of their religion, something that God never intended nor wanted. He wanted their hearts, not their bodies.
The Most High - God. This sentiment was expressed by Solomon when the temple was dedicated, (1 Kin. 8:27). It speaks of God as He Who is above all. There is no authority higher than God's and no power greater than His.
As saith the prophet - (Isa. 66:1-2). The place is not literally quoted, but the sense is given. The point is to give another venerated authority in the person of Isaiah that supports the point Stephen is making.
(Verse 49-50) - Heaven is my throne - (See Matt. 5:34). Namely, heaven, and not the earth is where God dwells, if He can be said to truly dwell anywhere.
Earth is my footstool - (See Matt. 5:35). No one would give the footstool more honor than the throne. Yet this is precisely what, in effect, the leaders were seeking to do. The King had descended from His throne, in the person of Christ, and had visited them, yet, they were more concerned with a perceived slur against the stool He put His feet upon than they were about the presence and command of the King in their midst.
What house - What house or temple can be large or magnificent enough for the dwelling of Him who made all things? A rhetorical question - in the context - the answer is obvious - no house can do this!
The place of my rest - My home, my abode, my fixed seat or habitation. (Compare Ps. 95:11).
What is glorious here is that there is another answer for this, in light of the revealed truth of the New Testament. What house is fit for the habitation of God? No human built house, certainly. That is assuredly Stephen's point. However, we know that there is a house fit for the habitation of God. That house is the body of the believer! Our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Spirit of God, where He dwells in truth and in His fullness. Those bodies are made fit for His habitation by the work of Jesus Christ, imputing His righteousness to His people and making a habitation truly fit for such a King!
Give glory to God for such marvelous truth!