Commentary - Acts 7:35-43

Bird's-eye view

In this central section of his defense, Stephen continues his masterful and devastating survey of Israel's history. He is not giving a dry history lesson; he is building a legal case. The charge against him was blasphemy against Moses and the temple. Stephen's defense is to show that his accusers, the Sanhedrin, are the true blasphemers because they are the ones who perpetuate Israel's long and sordid history of rejecting God's chosen deliverers. The central pivot of this passage is the figure of Moses. Stephen shows that the very Moses they claim to honor was himself rejected by their fathers. The man they disowned, God sent. The man they questioned, God appointed. This pattern of rejection is the central theme. Just as their fathers rejected Moses in the wilderness, so this generation has rejected the ultimate Prophet whom Moses foretold, Jesus Christ. Stephen drives the point home by highlighting their fathers' rank idolatry, their turning back to Egypt in their hearts and their worship of the golden calf and pagan deities. This is not just a past failure; it is a present reality. Their hearts are still in Egypt. Their worship is still idolatrous. And the result of such covenant treachery is always the same: God turns away and gives them over to their sin, culminating in judgment and exile.

Stephen is a prosecutor, and he is using history as his evidence. Every point he makes about Moses is a pointed accusation against his hearers concerning Jesus. The rejection of the deliverer, the demand for signs while ignoring the obvious ones, the preference for man-made religion over God's living oracles, and the ultimate consequence of divine abandonment, it all forms a crushing indictment of the first-century Jewish leadership. They are the true heirs of the wilderness rebels, not of faithful Moses.

Outline

Context In Acts

Stephen, one of the first deacons, has been arrested on trumped-up charges of blasphemy against Moses and the temple (Acts 6:11-14). His sermon in Acts 7 is his defense before the Sanhedrin, the same body that condemned Jesus. But it is far more than a defense; it is a prosecution. Stephen turns the tables on his accusers, demonstrating from their own Scriptures that they are part of a long, unbroken line of covenant-breakers who have always resisted the Holy Spirit and rejected God's messengers. This section (vv. 35-43) is the heart of his historical argument. He has already shown God's faithfulness to Abraham and Joseph. Now he focuses on Moses, the very figure they accused him of blaspheming. By showing how their fathers rejected Moses, he implicitly shows how the Sanhedrin has rejected Jesus, the prophet Moses predicted. This historical review sets the stage for his direct and fiery conclusion (vv. 51-53), which will provoke them to murderous rage and lead to Stephen becoming the first Christian martyr. His speech and death are a crucial turning point in Acts, sparking a great persecution that scatters the church from Jerusalem and thus launches the worldwide mission (Acts 8:1).

Key Issues

The Stiff-Necked History of Rejection

Stephen is not just recounting history; he is wielding it like a sword. The central nerve he touches, over and over, is Israel's historic tendency to reject the very deliverers God sends them. Joseph was rejected by his brothers. Moses was rejected by his kinsman. And the ultimate prophet, Jesus, was rejected by the generation Stephen was addressing. This is a story of covenantal rebellion that is written into the very DNA of the nation.

The irony is thick. The Sanhedrin has set itself up as the defender of Moses' honor, and Stephen shows them that they are behaving exactly like the generation that despised Moses in the wilderness. They revere the dead prophet but would kill the living one. They build monuments to the men their fathers murdered, thus testifying that they are the sons of murderers, both physically and spiritually. Stephen's argument is that you cannot claim to honor Moses while simultaneously rejecting the one to whom Moses pointed. To reject Jesus is to reject Moses. To dishonor the Son is to dishonor the Father who sent Him, and the prophet who foretold His coming.

Verse by Verse Commentary

35 “This Moses whom they disowned, saying, ‘WHO MADE YOU A RULER AND A JUDGE?’ is the one whom God sent to be both a ruler and a deliverer with the help of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.

Stephen begins with a sharp, rhetorical jab. "This Moses," he says, the very one you claim to follow, is the same one your fathers repudiated. The question, "Who made you a ruler and a judge?" was the sneering dismissal of a man trying to mediate a dispute (Ex. 2:14). It was a rejection of his authority. But Stephen immediately contrasts their human rejection with God's divine commission. They disowned him, but God sent him. They questioned his credentials, but God appointed him as both ruler and deliverer. The authority came from God, not from popular opinion. And notice who assists in this commission: the angel who appeared in the bush. This is the Angel of the Lord, a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. So the Son of God commissioned Moses, the type, to deliver Israel. The parallel is inescapable: the Sanhedrin has asked Jesus the very same question, and in rejecting Jesus, they are rejecting the one sent by God the Father.

36 This man led them out, doing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years.

Despite their rejection, Moses' authority was vindicated by divine power. Stephen piles up the evidence: wonders and signs. Where? In Egypt, at the Red Sea, and for forty years in the wilderness. The deliverance was not a quiet affair; it was a public, powerful, undeniable display of God's might working through His chosen servant. This serves two purposes in Stephen's argument. First, it underscores the foolishness of their fathers for continuing to grumble against a man so clearly empowered by God. Second, it is a direct parallel to the ministry of Jesus, who also performed countless wonders and signs, which the leadership likewise chose to ignore or attribute to Satan.

37 This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel, ‘GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BROTHERS.’

This is the linchpin of Stephen's argument concerning Moses. He quotes Deuteronomy 18:15. Moses himself, the great lawgiver, did not see himself as the final word. His ministry pointed forward to another. He prophesied that a future prophet, like him, would arise from among the people. To be a true follower of Moses, therefore, requires one to be on the lookout for this promised Prophet and to listen to Him when He arrives. Stephen is declaring, without yet naming Jesus, that this Prophet has come. By rejecting Jesus, the Sanhedrin is not defending Moses; they are directly disobeying him.

38 This is the one who, in the congregation in the wilderness, was with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai and with our fathers; the one who received living oracles to pass on to you.

Stephen continues to elevate Moses, but in a way that serves his argument. Moses was the mediator of the old covenant. He was in the congregation (the Greek word is ekklesia, church) in the wilderness. He was the go-between, interacting with the angel on Sinai (again, the pre-incarnate Christ) and with the people. And what he received were not dead regulations, but living oracles. The law was God's living word. This cuts against the charge that Stephen was speaking against the law. He held it in the highest regard. The tragedy, as he is about to show, is that the fathers did not treat it as a living word.

39 Our fathers were unwilling to be obedient to him, but rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt,

Here the indictment turns from their rejection of Moses' person to their rejection of his message. Despite all the miracles, despite receiving the living word of God, they were unwilling to obey. They "rejected him", the Greek word implies a forceful shove, a thrusting away. And the root of their disobedience was a matter of the heart. Physically they were in the wilderness, but spiritually, in their hearts, they had already gone back to Egypt. They preferred the security of slavery, the leeks and onions, to the freedom and responsibility of following God. This is the essence of unbelief: a love for the world and a rejection of God's rule.

40 SAYING TO AARON, ‘MAKE FOR US GODS WHO WILL GO BEFORE US; FOR THIS MOSES WHO LED US OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAS BECOME OF HIM.’

The heart-level apostasy immediately bears fruit in open idolatry. Their demand to Aaron is dripping with contempt for both God and Moses. They want tangible gods, gods they can see and control, to go before them. Their reason? They don't know what happened to "this Moses." They speak of him as some disconnected historical figure, not their covenant mediator who is at that very moment interceding for them on the mountain. Their impatience and unbelief lead them to replace the invisible God with a visible idol, and the God-appointed mediator with a man-made substitute.

41 At that time they made a calf and brought a sacrifice to the idol, and were rejoicing in the works of their hands.

They did not just commission the idol; they worshiped it and celebrated it. The making of the calf was a full-blown liturgical event, complete with sacrifices and rejoicing. But notice the damning phrase: they were rejoicing in the works of their hands. This is the very definition of idolatry. It is the creature worshiping the creation, and specifically, worshiping something it made itself. It is cosmic naval-gazing. They were celebrating their own rebellion, their own autonomy from God. This is the ultimate expression of a heart that has returned to Egypt.

42 But God turned away and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, ‘DID YOU PRESENT ME WITH SLAIN BEASTS AND SACRIFICES FORTY YEARS IN THE WILDERNESS, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL?

Here is the terrifying consequence. The "but" is stark. They turned from God, so God turned away from them. This is the principle of divine abandonment we see in Romans 1. When a people are determined to go their own way, God's judgment often takes the form of letting them have it. He "delivered them up" or "gave them over" to their sin. They wanted idols, so God let them have a whole sky full of them, the "host of heaven." Stephen then quotes from Amos 5, a passage that indicts Israel for the very thing their descendants were now priding themselves in: their history of sacrifice. God asks a rhetorical question through the prophet: Was it really to Me that you were sacrificing all those forty years? The implied answer is no. Their hearts were not in it. Their worship was shot through with idolatry from the very beginning.

43 YOU ALSO TOOK ALONG THE TABERNACLE OF MOLOCH AND THE STAR OF THE GOD ROMPHA, THE IMAGES WHICH YOU MADE TO WORSHIP. I ALSO WILL REMOVE YOU BEYOND BABYLON.’

The quote from Amos continues, getting more specific. While they were ostensibly worshiping Yahweh in the tabernacle, they were also, in secret or in syncretistic fashion, carrying along shrines to pagan gods. Moloch was a Canaanite deity associated with child sacrifice, and Rompha (or Rephan) was likely a star-god, connected to Saturn. They tried to have it both ways, blending the worship of the true God with the worship of demons. And the consequence for this covenant adultery is stated plainly: exile. "I will remove you beyond Babylon." For the northern kingdom to whom Amos preached, this was fulfilled in the Assyrian exile. For the southern kingdom, it was the Babylonian exile. For the generation Stephen is addressing, the principle holds. Their idolatrous rejection of the Messiah will lead to their own removal and the destruction of their city. Stephen is warning them that the same God who judged their fathers is about to judge them for the same sins.

Application

Stephen's sermon is a bucket of ice water for any church that has grown comfortable and self-satisfied. The temptation to honor dead prophets while ignoring the living Word of God is perennial. We can build beautiful churches, develop complex liturgies, and pride ourselves on our theological heritage, all while our hearts are secretly longing for the leeks and onions of Egypt, the approval of the world, financial security, carnal comforts.

We must ask ourselves: do we worship the works of our own hands? This is not just about golden calves. We can make an idol out of our traditions, our political affiliations, our ministries, or our own moral performance. Anything that we look to for deliverance, identity, or guidance apart from the living Christ is an idol. The American church is littered with tabernacles to Moloch and stars of Rompha, slickly packaged and syncretistically blended with Christian language.

The warning here is stark. When a people persist in such idolatry, God eventually "turns away." He gives them over to what they want. When a church wants to be more like the world, God's judgment may be to simply let them. When we reject the sharp, living oracles of God for a more palatable, man-made religion, we are inviting exile. The only remedy is the one Stephen's hearers rejected: to repent of our stiff-necked rebellion and bow the knee to the true Prophet, the great Deliverer, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the only one who can lead us out of our self-imposed Egypt and into the promised land of true worship and true freedom.