Pagan Worship In Jerusalem?

By Thomas A. Golding

[Thomas A. Golding is Principal, Adelaide College of Ministry, Adelaide, Australia.]

Certain thematic and verbal parallels in the two riot passages in the book of Acts, 19:23-40 and 21:27-22:29, suggest a possible narrative strategy.[1] This article surveys the temple as a theme in Luke-Acts and then examines parallels between the two riot passages. The goal is to see if Luke was making a subtle comparison between the perspective of the Ephesians toward the worship of Artemis and the perspective of the Jews toward the temple in Jerusalem. Did the Jews at the time of the apostles exhibit a view toward the temple that was similar to how Gentiles viewed their temples and was therefore essentially idolatrous? And if so, is this theme consistent with the overall theme of the temple in Luke-Acts?

The Temple In Luke-Acts

According to Hamm, the temple in Jerusalem is a greater theme in Luke-Acts than in the rest of the New Testament combined.[2] Fay calls “the geographic location of the temple” “a narrative focal point” for Luke-Acts.[3] In fact the geographical setting of the temple and Jerusalem effectively frames Luke’s Gospel. Luke opens with Zacharias serving in the temple in Jerusalem (1:8-9) and ends with Jesus’ followers “continually in the temple praising God” (24:53). The same is also true of Acts. The book opens with the apostles in Jerusalem (though not in the temple; 1:4), and it concludes (28:26-27) with a quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10, which was originally spoken in the temple in Isaiah’s day.[4] Both Luke and Acts mention the temple frequently at the beginning of the book, then the temple is not mentioned for a few chapters, and then mention returns to the temple later on.

Luke

The temple features prominently in the first two chapters of Luke, suggesting it is an important location in Luke’s narrative.[5] In addition to the opening narrative, chapter 2 relates several other incidents located at the temple in Jerusalem, all of which are unique to Luke: Jesus’ presentation at the temple when He was eight days old (2:22-24), the blessing of Simeon (vv. 25-35), the thanksgiving of Anna (vv. 36-38), and the later visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years old (vv. 41-50). This last narrative is especially significant, since Jesus referred to the temple as “My Father’s house” (v. 49).[6] The last mention of the temple until chapter 19 occurs in the context of Jesus’ temptation by Satan, which in Luke’s version ends at the temple (4:9-13).

Luke does include a “series of four texts . . . which speak of Jerusalem, its rejection of Jesus, and its coming destruction.”[7] This theme occurs for the first time in 13:33-35 and reoccurs in 19:41-44; 21:5-24; and 23:27-31. Even though the temple is not specifically mentioned in every passage, its destiny would be linked implicitly with that of Jerusalem.

The temple was the physical setting for the narrative once again when Jesus entered Jerusalem (Luke 19). As He drew near the city, He stopped and wept over it because He recognized that in the future Jerusalem’s enemies would “not leave . . . one stone upon another” (v. 44). Though not mentioning the temple directly, this statement clearly foreshadows its future destruction. Jesus did refer specifically to the temple in 21:6 when He predicted, “Days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”

Luke 19:45-20:38 is marked off as a unit by an inclusio with ἦν διδάσκων, with ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, and with a form of ἡμέρα in 19:47 and 21:37.[8] Jesus entered the temple and threw out those who were selling there (19:45). The reference to “My house”[9] in verse 46 recalls Jesus’ words to His parents in 2:49. Zealous for His Father’s reputation and the reputation of His “house,” Jesus moved in and put things in order. Chance argues that “Jesus is portrayed in this pericope [Luke 19:45-21:38] as the one who is the true, authoritative teacher of Israel. The temple is now his place where he is free to teach the people.” Chance adds that since verse 38 refers to Jesus as the King, “it is as Messiah that Jesus takes possession of the temple. The temple, therefore, is the Messiah’s place.”[10]

The next mention of the temple in Luke occurs in the crucifixion scene. Just before Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was torn in two (23:45). Taylor asserts that this revealed the emptiness of the ναός. Thus “it had already ceased to be a place where the divine presence was localised and concealed. . . . the emptiness of the sanctuary reveals that the temple had already completed its purpose, and the divine presence was already manifested elsewhere, in the person of Jesus.”[11] Green’s argument regarding the torn veil is probably a little more convincing. He argues “that the rending of the temple veil in Luke is of a piece with the larger Lukan emphasis on the obliteration of the barriers between those people previously divided by status and ethnicity.”[12] He also links it with Simeon’s prophecy in 2:30-32 that “God’s salvation would embrace all peoples, Gentile and Jew.”[13] Thus, as Luke-Acts progresses, an ever-widening access to God for all people is seen. As indicated previously, Luke’s Gospel concludes with the disciples “continually in the temple praising God” (24:53).

Acts

Just as Jerusalem and the temple feature prominently in the early chapters of Luke, so they provide a prominent physical setting in the first seven chapters of Acts. The apostles were doing the same kinds of things Jesus did in the temple, notably teaching and healing.[14] However, the most important contribution to the temple theme in Luke-Acts is made by Stephen’s speech in Acts 7.

The narrative begins with Stephen being dragged (συνήρπασαν, 6:12) before the Sanhedrin.[15] The accusation was, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs that Moses handed down to us” (6:13-14).[16]

Stephen’s speech is not just a random history lesson; it makes several significant points. Its main body (vv. 2-50) may be diagramed as a chiasm.

A. Change: Abraham to Canaan, Circumcision (vv. 2-8)

B. Rejection of God’s Appointed Leader: Joseph (vv. 9-16)

B.´ Rejection of God’s Appointed Leader: Moses (vv. 17-43)

A.´ Change: Israel to Canaan, Tabernacle to Temple (vv. 44-50)

Thus two primary themes emerge within Stephen’s message: (1) Israel’s historical rejection of God’s leader and (2) transitions in place and style of worship. As Stephen indicated in his conclusion, these things were happening again (vv. 51-53).[17]

Stephen used τόπος significantly in 7:33. He had been accused of speaking against “this holy place” in 6:13-14. He then referred to a different “holy place,” the place where God appeared to Moses in the burning bush (7:33). This demonstrates change and development regarding holy places. As Dunn writes, “The presence of God in Israel’s history had not been restricted to one land or building.”[18] There was also no temple when Moses gave the people the Law in the wilderness. In fact God instructed them to build a σκηνὴ, a “tent” (v. 44). Only later did Solomon build an οἶκον, “house” (v. 47).

Stephen added, “But the Most High does not dwell in what is made by hands” (v. 48, author’s translation).[19] He then quotes Isaiah 66:1-2—“ ‘Heaven is My throne, and earth is the footstool of My feet; what kind of house will you build for Me,’ says the Lord, ‘or what place is there for My repose? Was it not My hand which made all these things?’ ” One might have expected Stephen to have quoted Solomon in 1 Kings 8:27—“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built?” Instead he chose the passage in Isaiah, perhaps because of its context. What Stephen did not quote from that context is Isaiah’s statement about God regarding the humble person who trembles at His word (Isa. 66:2b). Verse 3 compares Judah’s hypocritical worship to various forms of idolatry. And verse 5 promises that the “brothers who hate you, who exclude you for My name’s sake . . . will be put to shame.” All this is compatible with the setting and message of Acts.[20]

Stephen also highlighted Israel’s idolatry in the wilderness. Israel first made a golden calf at Sinai (Acts 7:39-41). Then they continued to worship other deities throughout their time in the wilderness (vv. 42-43; cf. Amos 5:25-26). Stephen’s point was that Israel had been idolatrous in their worship of God in the past and was again idolatrous in the present.

As in Luke, the temple is not referred to in Acts for a while. Dunn highlights how easily contributions to the theme can be missed, however.[21] The material in 6:8-12:25 focuses on the “bridge builders” of Acts, the Hellenistic Jews (especially Stephen, Philip, and Paul), who took the gospel beyond the borders of Judea. A steady movement away from Jerusalem and the temple continues, even though the temple is not overtly mentioned. Dunn points out that Philip’s mission to Samaria in 8:5-25 furthered the widening rift between Christianity and mainline Judaism, since the major issue dividing Jews and Samaritans was the temple.[22] Luke subsequently included narratives about two individuals formerly excluded from the temple (the Ethiopian eunuch and the Roman soldier Cornelius). The beginning of a church in Gentile Antioch is seen in Acts 10-11.

The physical setting of the narrative returns to Jerusalem in 11:1-18 and in chapters 12 and 15. Nothing significant took place at the temple until Paul returned there, as recorded in chapter 21. But again in the intervening material there is further movement away from Jerusalem and the temple as a result of Paul’s missionary endeavors. Especially significant is his speech in Athens in Acts 17:22-31. Provoked by the local idolatry, he asserted, “The God who made the world and all things in it . . . does not dwell in temples made by hands” (17:24; cf. 7:48). Perhaps most strikingly, he added, “though He is not far from each one of us” (17:27). Though the God of the Jews had a temple in Jerusalem, it did not “house” Him, and no person anywhere in the world was excluded from His presence.

The quotation of Isaiah 6:9-10 in Acts 28:25-27 concludes the book. It too is important to the discussion, even though the temple is never mentioned. Beale observes, “The cumulative evidence of this study points to the plausibility that the sensory-organ-malfunction language, ‘having ears but not hearing’, in conjunction with similar terminology in Isa. vi 9-13 and elsewhere indicates not mere spiritual incapacity, but a linkage of Israel’s judgement with its idolatry.”[23] Beale demonstrates that part of the judgment of idolatry is becoming like what one worships.[24] By citing Isaiah 6:9-10 in Acts 28:26-27, Luke was labeling the unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day as idolaters!

Several writers see Jesus and the church taking over the role of an “eschatological temple.” Taylor, who views Acts as written after the destruction of the temple in AD 70, writes, “We should assume that Luke-Acts was written against a background in which the majority of the Jewish people hoped for and expected the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple in the foreseeable, even if distant, future.”[25] Christians, as well as mainstream Judaism, needed to provide a theological justification for a movement away from the temple in Jerusalem. Along this line Baltzer writes, “For Judaism, there remained the hope that the Temple would be rebuilt. Luke solved the problem by means of his Christology. For him, Christ is the presence of God, because Christ, kābôd/δόξα, and spirit are related.”[26] And Taylor writes, “The shekinah had ceased to be located exclusively in the temple with the beginning of the Gospel, and the Jewish sanctuary had accordingly ceased to fulfil its function long before its destruction; it had been exposed as an empty shell at the death of Jesus. In Acts, divine presence has come to be manifested in and through the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.”[27]

Beale relates the Holy Spirit’s “filling the house” in Acts 2:2 to similar fillings of the tabernacle or temple in the Old Testament when they were being inaugurated (Exod. 40:34-38; 1 Kings. 8:10-11; 2 Chron. 7:1-2).[28] Thus “Luke’s rhetorical goal for readers would be for them to realize that they are a part of the end-time temple and that their evangelistic efforts are crucial in the further building and expansion of that temple.”[29]

While the concept of the church as a temple is certainly found in the New Testament,[30] it is less clear that this is an intentional theme in Luke-Acts. With the coming of the Messiah and His final sacrifice for sin, the temple had lost its primary function. With the religious authorities’ rejection of Jesus, the focus had turned to the Gentiles. Acts seems to be arguing that the continued veneration of the temple after the death of Christ was empty and even idolatrous. As Stephen argued, the people of Israel were always slow to catch up with what God was doing. This survey of the temple leads to a comparison of the two riot scenes in Acts.

Parallels Between Acts 19:23-40 And Acts 21:27-22:29

Luke included two major riot narratives in the book of Acts.[31] The underlying cause of both was Paul and his teaching. The first riot took place in Gentile Ephesus and is recorded in Acts 19:23-40. The second riot took place in Jerusalem and is narrated in Acts 21:27-22:29.

The Riot In Ephesus

Acts 19:23-40 seems to be structured in a tightly symmetrical fashion as follows.

A. Introduction: A Great Disturbance (v. 23)

B. Demetrius’s Speech (vv. 24-27)

C. Townspeople’s Cry (v. 28) [μεγάλη ἡ ςΑρτεμις ∆Εφεσίων]

D. Confusion (v. 29) [σύγχυσις]

E. Paul Kept Away (vv. 30-31)

D.´ Confusion (v. 32) [συγχέω]

C.´ Townspeople’s Cry (vv. 33-34) [μεγάλη ἡ ςΑρτεμις ∆Εφεσίων]

B.´ The Town Clerk’s Speech (vv. 35-40a)

A.´ Conclusion: The Crowd Dismissed (v. 40b)[32]

The disturbance arose when a silversmith named Demetrius expressed concern over a potential loss of income as a result of Paul’s teaching. “Men, you know that our prosperity depends upon this business. You see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all.[33] Not only is there danger that this trade of ours fall into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis be regarded as worthless and that she whom all of Asia and the world worship will even be dethroned from her magnificence” (19:25-27).

The speech is relatively long and therefore seems significant. Two concerns stand out. The first was that the silversmiths’ trade might be discredited, which would in turn affect their income. Being expressed first, this was probably Demetrius’s primary concern. The second concern was that the temple of Artemis, of which the Ephesians were guardians, would be disregarded and the honor of Artemis would be diminished.[34] “Paul’s preaching struck directly at the most cherished values of the Ephesians, the power of the goddess and the economics of pagan worship.”[35]

A riot ensued as a result of this speech. When Paul intended to go to the public meeting, his friends were able to convince him to stay away.[36] The riot ended when the town clerk calmed the crowd and pronounced Paul innocent of any wrongdoing (vv. 35-40).

The Riot In Jerusalem

The second riot in Acts is recorded in 21:27-22:29. The fact that all the action took place at the temple on the same day probably marks these verses as a complete narrative unit. It may be subdivided into five scenes: (1) the beginning of the riot at the temple (21:27-31); (2) the arrival of the Romans (21:32-36); (3) Paul and the Roman commander (21:37-39); (4) Paul’s defense on the temple steps (21:40-22:23); and (5) Paul in the barracks (22:24-29). Judging by the law of proportion, Paul’s speech is quite significant. However, when the structures of the two riot accounts are compared, this speech becomes less important, since Paul, unlike Demetrius, had no parallel speech.

A possible preferable structure for the unit would be to exclude 22:24-29, in which the scene shifted to the barracks. A thematic inclusio can be seen in 21:28 and 22:21. In 21:28 the Jews reacted to Paul supposedly having “brought Greeks into the temple.” Their reaction to Paul’s statement that Jesus was sending him “far away to the Gentiles” (22:21) serves as a suitable “bookend.” The main issues in this narrative then are the sanctity of the temple and the Gentile ministry. These two thoughts are linked by the perceived threat of a diminishing status for the temple in Jerusalem. This concern is not dissimilar to the corresponding concern for Artemis and her temple in Ephesus.

The speech of the Jews from Asia in 21:28 is significant. They accused Paul of teaching “all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place.” Even more seriously, they accused him of defiling the “holy place” by bringing Greeks into it. Their accusation recalls the earlier accusation against Stephen, who had been accused of “incessantly [speaking] against this holy place and the Law” (6:13-14). As in Ephesus, a riot resulted.[37]

Parallels

Numerous thematic and verbal parallels link these two narratives.

Thematic parallels. The storyline of each narrative follows a similar contour. Of course there are differences because the two incidents were not identical. But in both concern was expressed over the local temple being diminished (19:26-27 and 21:28), Paul and his teaching were to blame (19:26 and 21:28), and a rousing speech incited a riot (19:28-29 and 21:30).

The descriptions of the riots are also similar. In 19:29 “they rushed with one accord into the theatre” (ὥρμησάν τε ὁμοθυμαδὸν εἰς τὸ θέατρον). Similarly in 21:30 “there was a rushing together of the people” (literal translation; καὶ ἐγένετο συνδρομὴ τοῦ λαοῦ). In Ephesus Paul’s companions Gaius and Aristarchus were dragged (συναρπάζω) into the theater (19:29). In Jerusalem Paul was seized (ἐπιλαμβάνομαι) and dragged (ἕλκω) from the temple, his life very much in danger (21:30).[38] In Ephesus a Jew named Alexander was put forward. But rather than calming the crowd, he incited it further (19:33-34). Paul, also a Jew, was able to calm the crowd at the temple when they heard him speaking in Hebrew (21:39-22:2). However, he subsequently re-incited the crowd (22:21ff.). In each case a Gentile authority figure intervened to stop the riot from getting out of hand (19:35-41 and 21:31-38; 22:24).

Verbal parallels. A “temple” (ἱερός) figures prominently in both narratives (19:27 and 21:27-30). The stories are linked by the mention of “Asia” (19:26-27 and 21:27; cf. 6:9) and by people who are “Ephesian(s)” (19:28, 34-35, and 21:29). Both refer to Christianity as the “Way” (19:23 and 22:4).

Two speeches in each narrative begin with the term “Men.” In the first narrative Demetrius began his address with ἄνδρες (19:25) and the town clerk began his with ἄνδρες ᾿Εφέσιοι (19:35). Similarly in the second narrative the Jews from Asia began their address with ἄνδρες ᾿Ισραηλῖται (21:35) and Paul began his with ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες (22:1). In each narrative a speech is reported using a form of ἀκούω followed by λέγοντες.[39] In Ephesus the silversmiths “listened” to Demetrius, became angry, and then cried out, “saying, ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’ ” (19:28). In Jerusalem the Jews “listened” to Paul until he spoke of being sent to the Gentiles, then lifted up their voices, “saying, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!” (22:22).

The far-reaching impact of Paul’s teaching is also emphasized in the speeches of the two antagonists. In 19:26 Demetrius said that “not only in Ephesus, but in almost all Asia” many people had been persuaded. In 21:28 the Jews from Asia claimed Paul was teaching “all men everywhere.”

A “crowd” is present in both stories (19:33, 35, and 21:27, 34-35). In both someone “motioned with the hand”[40] before making a defense to the people. In 19:33 Alexander motioned (κατασείσας τὴν χεῖρα) in order “to make a defense” (ἀπολογεῖσθαι) “to the people” (τῷ δήμῳ). In 21:40 Paul motioned (κατέσεισεν τῇ χειρὶ) “to the people” (τῷ λαῷ) and in 22:1 began his “defense” (ἀπολογίας).

The theme of the city becoming a place of confusion is present in both narratives. The “city was filled with the confusion” (καὶ ἐπλήσθη ἡ πόλις τῆς συγχυσεως) in 19:29, and in 19:32 “the assembly was in confusion” (ἡ ἐκκλησία συγκεχυμένη). Similarly 21:27 says the Jews “began to stir up all the crowd” (συνέχεον πάντα τὸν ὄχλον), and 21:30 says that “all the city was provoked” (ἐκινήθη τε ἡ πόλις ὅλη). The Ephesian antagonists were “crying out” (ἔκράζον) in 19:28 and 32, and those in Jerusalem were “crying out” (21:28) and “shouting” (v. 36; cf. 7:57). In 20:1 and 21:34, each riot is termed an “uproar” (θόρυβος). A final verbal parallel is the similar use of φωνή (“outcry” in 19:34 and “voices” in 22:22).

Some of these words and phrases are admittedly common; others, however, are less common and catch the reader’s attention. Taken together, the numerous parallels, both verbal and thematic, have the cumulative effect of strongly suggesting an underlying narrative strategy on the part of the writer. This is as though Luke were setting the two narratives side by side so that the reader would compare and note similarities between these two groups of people—the pagan worshipers of Artemis in Ephesus and the Jewish worshipers at the temple in Jerusalem.

The overarching structure of Acts is probably also significant. The third major section of Acts ends at 19:20 with the statement, “So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.”[41] Thus even though the narrative of 19:23-40 is set in Ephesus, which Paul came to in the third major unit of Acts, the overall structure of the book suggests that the material beginning in 19:21 has a closer relationship with the material of the fourth and final major unit, 19:21-28:31.[42]

Conclusions

In Acts 19:23-40 Luke continued to show the supremacy of the Christian gospel over the deities of the pagan world. He also gave a picture of what idolatry looks like. Then he held it up to the nation Israel, and the resemblances were amazing.

Stephen indicated that the people of Israel had been idolaters in the past. And judged by their rejection of what God was doing through Jesus, they had once again corrupted their worship. In a comparison of their attitudes and behaviors with those of the worshipers of Artemis in Ephesus, very little difference is evident. The perspective of the Jews toward the temple was strikingly similar to that of Gentile worshipers of gods and goddesses like Artemis.

The idolatry at the Jerusalem temple in Acts is nowhere near as graphic as in a passage like Ezekiel 8. The temple itself was not idolatrous or filled with idolatrous articles.[43] Rather, the (stereotypical) perspective of the Jews concerning the temple was. Continuing to worship at the temple and venerate the temple while rejecting God’s work through Jesus dishonored God.

Notes

1. C. L. Brinks notes Fitzmyer’s comment “that Christianity is reacting against the idolatry of the Artemis cult the way it responded to the ‘cult of Yahweh’ in Jerusalem” (“ ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians’: Acts 19:23-41 in Light of Goddess Worship in Ephesus,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 [October 2009]: 785-86). Fitzmyer’s comment relates to Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 656. Darrell L. Bock makes passing comments about the similarities between the two passages in Acts (Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 608, 653). And Luke Timothy Johnson notes a similarity between the resistance of the idolatrous Ephesians in Acts 19 and that of the Jewish leaders in Acts 21-22 (The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical], 353).
2. Dennis Hamm, “The Tamid Service in Luke-Acts: The Cultic Background behind Luke’s Theology of Worship (Luke 1:5-25; 18:9-14; 24:50-53; Acts 3:1; 10:3, 30),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65 (April 2003): 220. For detailed statistics see J. Bradley Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1988), 1-2. For a survey of the temple theme in Luke-Acts see Klaus Baltzer, “The Meaning of the Temple in the Lucan Writings,” Harvard Theological Review 58 (July 1965): 271-77. A less exhaustive survey is given by Ron C. Fay, “The Narrative Function of the Temple in Luke-Acts,” Trinity Journal 27 (Autumn 2009): 256-61. Terms used for the temple in Luke-Acts include ἱερόν (“temple”), referring to the entire temple complex (thirty-nine times), ναός (“temple”), referring specifically to the inner sanctuary (six times), and οἶκος (“house”; either five or six times in reference to the temple), and (ἅγιος) τόπος “(holy) place” (three times). See also Nicholas H. Taylor, “The Jerusalem Temple in Luke-Acts,” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 60 (2004): 462-70.
3. Fay, “The Narrative Function of the Temple in Luke-Acts,” 259.
4. Baltzer, “The Meaning of the Temple in the Lucan Writings,” 277.
5. Fay, “The Narrative Function of the Temple in Luke-Acts,” 256. See also Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age, 47-48. Chance notes a geographical inclusio framing chapters 1-2 (1:8-11 and 2:41-43).
6. Verse 49 actually reads “in the things of My Father” (ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου). English versions usually translate with “My Father’s house,” but “the things of My Father” is an option. Joel B. Green combines the two thoughts as “God’s temple and the affairs of God’s temple” (“The Demise of the Temple as Culture Center in Luke-Acts: An Exploration of the Rending of the Temple Veil [Luke 23.44-49],” Revue Biblique 101 [1994]: 508-9).
7. Robert C. Tannehill, “Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story,” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (March 1985): 75. Baltzer suggests the possibility that οἶκὀς refers to the temple in 13:35. Thus “the meaning of the threat, ‘your house will be left vacant’ would be that God will withdraw his presence from the Temple and from Jerusalem” (“The Meaning of the Temple in the Lucan Writings,” 272-73). In favor of this are other passages where the temple (or tabernacle) is called a “house” (Luke 6:4; 11:51; 19:46; Acts 7:47, 49). However, “house” is also used as a reference to Israel or Jacob as a nation in Luke 1:33; Acts 2:36; and 7:42, 46.
8. The cognates διδάσκω and διδάσκαλος also occur nine times in this unit (19:47; 20:1, 21 [three times], 28, 39; 21:7, 37).
9. Here Jesus brought together thoughts from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11.
10. Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age, 58. Luke is the only Gospel writer to use “king” in this quotation from Psalm 118:26. Unlike Matthew and John, Luke did not cite Zechariah 9:9. But apparently from that verse he got the idea of “the King,” for “the king” occurs there but not in Psalm 118:26.
11. Taylor, “The Jerusalem Temple in Luke-Acts,” 477. Against viewing Jesus and the church as the “eschatological temple,” see Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age, 45.
12. Green, “The Demise of the Temple as Culture Center in Luke-Acts,” 496.
13. Ibid., 505.
14. Ibid., 511.
15. See the similar use of συναρπάζω in 19:29.
16. A similar accusation is recorded in Acts 21:28, where the Jews from Asia said Paul preached κατὰ . . . τοῦ τόπου τούτου (cf. 6:14) and that he had defiled τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον (cf. 6:13).
17. See also James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 1991), 65.
18. Ibid.
19. For a similar combination of χειροποίητος and κατοικέω see 17:24. According to David W. Pao, every use of χειροποίητος in the Septuagint refers to an idol (Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 195).
20. James P. Sweeney argues along this line as well (“Stephen’s Speech [Acts 7:2-53]: Is It as ‘Anti-Temple’ as Is Frequently Alleged?” Trinity Journal 23 [Fall 2002]: 200).
21. See his discussion in Dunn, The Partings of the Ways, 71-73.
22. John 4:20-21 refers to the Jerusalem versus Mount Gerazim question.
23. G. K. Beale, “Isaiah vi 9-13: A Retributive Taunt against Idolatry,” Vetus Testamentum 41 (1991), 277. See also Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 106. Pao argues that anti-idol polemic is an important part of Luke’s narrative strategy in Acts. See especially Pao’s chapter 6, “The Lord of the Nations: The Anti-Idol Polemic.”
24. See Psalms 115:4-8 and 135:15-18 (Beale, “Isaiah vi 9-13,” 258).
25. Taylor, “The Jerusalem Temple in Luke-Acts,” 461. Chance writes similarly in Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age, 16.
26. Baltzer, “The Meaning of the Temple in the Lucan Writings,” 277.
27. Taylor, “The Jerusalem Temple in Luke-Acts,” 481.
28. G. K. Beale, “The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost: Part 2, Corroborating Evidence,” Tyndale Bulletin 56 (July 2005): 64-65. The Greek verb used in these passages in the Septuagint is πίμπλημι, rather than πληρόω as in Acts 2:2. However, the two words are roughly equivalent translations of the Hebrew מָלֵא. The same wording is used in Isaiah 6:4; Ezekiel 10:3-4; and Haggai 2:7.
29. Ibid., 85. See also G. K. Beale, “The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost: Part 1, The Clearest Evidence,” Tyndale Bulletin 56 (January 2005): 99. Beale incorporates James’s use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-18 into his understanding as well (“Christ and the Church as the Emerging New Eschatological Temple: James’ Testimony in Acts 15,” in Christ, Salvation, and the Eschaton: Essays in Honor of Hans K. LaRondelle [Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 2009], 352).
30. John’s Gospel seems to use this imagery in places like 2:19-22 and 14:2-3. Other passages clearly describing the church as God’s temple include 1 Corinthians 3:8-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:19-22; and 1 Peter 2:4-10. Dunn discusses how Paul in his writings assumed the imagery of the temple sacrifices and priesthood and themes such as purity and Jerusalem (The Partings of the Ways, 75-86).
31. Perhaps the stoning of Stephen could also be classed as a “riot.” There are several clear parallels between Acts 6:8-7:60 and 21:27-22:29.
32. The last sentence in Acts 19:40 is verse 41 in many translations.
33. Cf. Stephen’s comments in 7:41 and 48.
34. For fuller discussions of Artemis and her worship at Ephesus see Brinks, “Great Is Artemis,” 778-83; and Scott Shauf, Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 243-46. Bock says this temple was “the largest building in the Greek world” (Acts, 608), four times the size of the Parthenon and larger than a football field (ibid., 607). For the connection between Artemis and magic see Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians: Power and Magic; The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 20-28.
35. Maxwell E. Johnson, “The Apostle Paul and the Riot at Ephesus,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 14 (October 1979): 86.
36. Of interest is the fact that verses 30-31 form the center of the chiasm.
37. The verb βοηθέω, “to render aid, assist,” occurs in Acts only in 16:9 and 21:28, where it is spoken by the man of Macedonia. This is perhaps a subtle way of highlighting the fact that the Jews were working against the Spirit of God, who was reaching out to the Gentiles.
38. F. F. Bruce views this as the point at which “the temple ceased to fill the honorable role hitherto allotted to it in his [Luke’s] twofold history.” By excluding Paul and his God-given message the Jews were sealing the temple’s fate (The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 450). See also Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 697; and Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, 382.
39. This is a fairly common construction in Acts. See 2:37; 4:24; 6:14; 8:30; 9:4, 21; 11:7, 18; 17:32; 19:28; 21:20; 22:7, 22, 26; and 26:14. What is striking is the similar angry response from the audience to what they heard in only these two passages.
40. This motioning with the hand is also mentioned in 12:17 and 13:16.
41. Most commentators divide the book of Acts into four main units based on the threefold repetition of phrases using ὁ λόγος and αὐξάνω, which occur in 6:7; 12:24; and 19:20. For a discussion of the word as the central “character” in Acts see Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 150-67, 176-80.
42. Scott Shauf argues against this. He rejects a reason usually given for the break proposed here: that Acts 19:21-22 parallels Luke 9:51-53, providing Paul with a plan to go to Jerusalem that parallels Jesus’ plan, and he cites a difference in content (Theology as History, History as Theology, 235-37).
43. Numerous writers say Luke-Acts does not denigrate the temple (e.g., Francis D. Weinert, “The Meaning of the Temple in Luke-Acts,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 11 [1981]: 89; and Fay, “The Narrative Function of the Temple in Luke-Acts,” 258). Dunn lands on both sides, claiming that Luke-Acts is positive about the temple but that Stephen’s speech is critical. In his view Stephen’s speech labels the temple an “idol.” Dunn correlates the use of χειροποίητοις (“made by hands”) in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:48, with the use of θυσίαν τῷ/ ἔδώλῳ καὶ εὐφραίνοντο ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν in 7:41 (The Partings of the Ways, 65-67). The current author agrees with Beale’s statement that “for Jews to continue to believe that God’s unique revelatory presence was in their physical temple and not in Christ was idolatry.” But the present author disagrees with Beale that “the temple had become an idol” (We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity], 186).