John Calvin Commentary Acts 6:14

"for we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us." — Acts 6:14 (ASV)

We have heard It will fully appear from Stephen’s defense that he never spoke anything concerning Moses or the temple without reverence. And yet, this was not charged against him without reason, for he had taught the abrogation of the law. But they are false witnesses in this, and suborned to lie, because they deliberately corrupt those things which were well and godly spoken. So Christ was compelled to clarify that He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law, because when He had preached about abrogating the ceremonies, the wicked twisted this for another purpose, as if He meant to abolish and take away the whole law. Furthermore, they wickedly twisted what He spoke concerning His body to refer to the temple of Jerusalem. Was it not also objected to Paul that he taught, “That evil is to be done, that good may come thereof?”

Therefore, there is no reason why we should wonder today that what we teach in a godly, good, and profitable manner is so falsely misconstrued. Indeed, we should rather convince ourselves that the doctrine of the gospel can never be handled so carefully and moderately that it will not be subject to false accusations, for Satan, who is the father of lies, always busies himself in his office.

Again, because there are many things which are contrary to the reason of the flesh, people are most inclined to accept false reports, which corrupt the true and sincere meaning of doctrine. This malice of Satan, and his deceits, ought to make us more wary and more circumspect, so that nothing preposterous, or anything improperly spoken, escapes us with which they may be armed to fight against us. For we must carefully remove from the wicked that opportunity which they seize.

And if we see that doctrine, which is delivered by us well and godly, is corrupted, deformed, and torn to pieces by false reports, we must not regret that we have begun, nor is there any reason why we should be more slack in the future. For it is not fitting that we should flee from the poisoned and venomous bites of Satan, which the Son of God himself could not escape.

Meanwhile, it is our part and duty to refute and dispel those lies with which the truth of God is burdened, just as we see Christ free the doctrine of the gospel from unjust infamy. Let us only prepare ourselves so that such indignity and dishonest dealing may not hinder us in our course.

Because we teach that men are so corrupt that they are altogether slaves to sin and wicked lusts, the enemies consequently infer this false accusation: that we deny that men sin willingly, but that they are forced to it by some other means, so that they are not at fault, nor bear any blame. Indeed, they say further that we completely quench all desire to do well.

Because we deny that the works of holy men are meritorious in themselves, since they always have some fault or imperfection in them, they cavil that we make no distinction between the good and the evil. Because we say that man’s righteousness consists in the grace of God alone, and that godly souls can find rest nowhere else except in the death of Christ, they object that by this means we grant liberty to the flesh (to do whatever it wills), and that the use of the law may no longer remain.

When we maintain the honor of Christ, which they bestow as it pleases them here and there after they have torn it into a thousand pieces like prey, they pretend that we are enemies to the saints. They falsely report that we seek the licentiousness of the flesh instead of the liberty of the Spirit.

While we endeavor to restore the Supper of the Lord to its pure and lawful use, they cry out impudently that we overthrow and destroy it. Others also, who take away all things as did the Academics, because what we teach from the Scriptures concerning the secret predestination of God does not please them, spitefully accuse us of making God a tyrant who takes pleasure in putting innocent men to death, seeing that He has already condemned to eternal death those who are as yet unborn, and other such things that can be said in this regard. This is even though they are sufficiently convinced that we think reverently of God and that we speak no differently than He teaches with His own mouth.

It is a hard thing to endure such envy, yet we must not therefore cease to defend a good cause. For the truth of God is precious in His sight, and it ought also to be precious to us, although it is to the reprobate the savor of death unto death (2 Corinthians 2:16).

But now I return to Stephen’s accusation, the principal point of which is this: that he blasphemed God and Moses. They do, for good reasons, make the injury common to God and to Moses, because Moses had nothing in his doctrine which was his own or separated from God. They prove this because he spoke blasphemously against the temple and the law. Furthermore, they make this the blasphemy: that he said the coming of Christ had put an end to the temple and the ceremonies.

It is not credible that Stephen spoke as they report. Instead, they maliciously twist those things which were spoken well and godly, so that they may lend credence to their false accusation. But even if they had changed nothing in the words, Stephen was so far from doing any injury to the law and the temple that he could, in fact, have praised them no better and more truly.

The Jews supposed that the temple was completely dishonored unless its shadowy state endured forever, and that the law of Moses was invalid and worthless unless the ceremonies were continually in force. But the excellence of the temple and the benefit of the ceremonies consist rather in this: when they are referred to Christ as their principal pattern.

Therefore, however much the accusation has some plausibility, it is still unjust and wicked.

And although the factual matter is disputed—that is, whether things are as the adversaries charge against him—nevertheless, the issue is properly one of quality. They accuse Stephen because he taught that the form of God’s worship then in use should be changed, and they interpret this as blasphemy against God and Moses.

Therefore, the controversy is more about what is right (as they say) than about the fact itself. For the question is this: Is someone injurious and wicked against God and Moses who says that the visible temple is an image of a more excellent sanctuary where the fullness of the Godhead dwells, and who teaches that the shadows of the law are temporary?

This Jesus of Nazareth. They speak in this way of Christ disdainfully, as if the remembrance of Him were detestable.

Nevertheless, it may be gathered from their accusations that Stephen, in abrogating the law, set the body against the shadows, and the substance against the figure. For if ceremonies are abolished by Christ, their truth is spiritual.

The Jews, who would have them continue forever, considered nothing in them but that which was gross, carnal, earthly, and which could be seen with the eyes.

Briefly, if the use of ceremonies were to be continual, they would be frail and would vanish away, because they would have nothing but the external show alone, so that they would have no soundness. Therefore, this is their true perpetuity: when they are abrogated by the coming of Christ, because it follows from this that their force and effect consists in Christ.

Shall change the ordinances. There is no doubt that Stephen meant this to refer only to the ceremonial part. But because people are inclined to be more addicted to external pomp, these men understand what was spoken as if Stephen would bring the whole law to nothing.

The principal precepts of the law did indeed concern the spiritual worship of God, faith, justice, and judgment. But because these men value more highly the external rites, they pre-eminently call the rites commanded concerning sacrifices the ordinances of Moses.

This has been bred in the bone from the beginning of the world, and it will never be out of the flesh as long as it lasts.

Just as today the Papists acknowledge no worship of God except in their masks, although they differ greatly from the Jews because they follow nothing but the frivolous inventions of men instead of the ordinances of God.