Acts 6:13 · Bible study
Acts 6:13 Commentary: False Witnesses and the Temple Charge
Greek · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why the witnesses against Stephen are called false when they twisted his true words about the temple and the law. A study of perversion and truth.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The false witnesses distort Stephen’s teaching about the temple’s temporary role and the law’s fulfilment in Christ, charging him with blasphemy.
- Key words: ψευδεῖς μάρτυρας (pseudeis marturas), false witnesses; ῥήματα βλάσφημα (rhēmata blasphēma), blasphemous declarations (omitted in key manuscripts).
- Main debate: Whether the witnesses were false because they invented words or because they twisted genuine words; most commentators favour the latter.
- Theological theme: The transition from the old covenant (temple and law) to the new in Christ; persecution follows when the shift is proclaimed.
- Best use: A model for understanding how truth can be weaponised; a call to speak with courage even when misrepresentation is certain.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
where they presented false witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law.
WEB World English Bible 2000
and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking blasphemous words against this holy place and the law.
KJV King James Version 1769
And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
ASV American Standard Version 1901
and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceaseth not to speak words against this holy place, and the law:
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
they set up also false witnesses, saying, `This one doth not cease to speak evil sayings against this holy place and the law,
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And they set false witnesses, saying, This man does not cease speaking words against the holy place and the law;
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And they set up false witnesses, who said: This man ceaseth not to speak words against the holy place and the law.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y pusieron testigos falsos, que dijesen: Este hombre no cesa de hablar palabras blasfemas contra este lugar santo y la ley:
E apresentaram falsas testemunhas, que diziam: Este homem não para de falar palavras blasfemas contra este santo lugar, e contra a Lei.
Ils produisirent de faux témoins, qui dirent: Cet homme ne cesse de proférer des paroles contre le lieu saint et contre la loi;
und stellten falsche Zeugen dar, die sprachen: Dieser Mensch hört nicht auf, zu reden Lästerworte wider diese heilige Stätte und das Gesetz.
En stelden valse getuigen, die zeiden: Deze mens houdt niet op lasterlijke woorden te spreken tegen deze heilige plaats en de wet.
e presentarono dei falsi testimoni, che dicevano: Quest’uomo non cessa di proferir parole contro il luogo santo e contro la legge.
I stawili fałszywych świadków, którzy rzekli: Ten człowiek nie przestaje mówić słów bluźnierczych przeciwko temu świętemu miejscu i zakonowi.
И представили ложных свидетелей, которые говорили: этот человек не перестает говорить хульные слова на святое место сие и на закон.
設下 假 見證，說：「這個 人 說話，不住地 糟踐 聖 所 和 律法。
And they got false witnesses who said, This man is for ever saying things against this holy place and against the law:
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · Acts 6:13
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
The commentators agree that the witnesses are called false not because they invented Stephen’s words from scratch, but because they twisted his meaning. Barnes argues that no evidence exists Stephen ever claimed Jesus would destroy the temple; the witnesses probably repeated things Jesus Himself said (Matthew 24:15) and applied them maliciously. Clarke calls their testimony a “false colouring” of Stephen’s actual teaching that the temple would be destroyed and the law could not give life. Cambridge Bible likewise notes the falseness lies in the “perverted turn” given to Stephen’s words. Gill adds that the witnesses omitted Stephen’s name through contempt and spun his prediction of the temple’s destruction into an ongoing charge of blasphemy. Some early manuscripts omit the word “blasphemous” (Cambridge, Gill), which suggests the accusation itself, speaking against the holy place and the law, was considered blasphemous enough. In sum, the falsehood is in the spin: what Stephen taught as fulfilment and transition, they presented as attack and rejection.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Perverted words: The witnesses heard genuine sayings of Stephen about the temple and law and twisted their meaning (Barnes, Clarke, Cambridge).
- Literal falsehood: Some argue Stephen never said these words; the witnesses invented them outright (Barnes notes the improbability given Jesus’ own teaching).
What is clear: The witnesses acted falsely, their goal was to incite the council, and Stephen was not guilty of blasphemy against God.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Were the witnesses false because they invented words or twisted them? | All commentators say the witnesses presented a false picture of Stephen's teaching. | Barnes and Cambridge argue the words were twisted from genuine sayings of Stephen or Jesus; others, like Clarke, suggest the witnesses added their own colouring. The distinction rarely affects the outcome, both agree Stephen was innocent of blasphemy. |
| Did Stephen actually predict the temple's destruction? | Stephen likely taught that the temple worship would be transcended in Christ. | Some (Barnes) doubt he ever used the words 'destroy this place,' noting Jesus did not; Gill sees it as a natural inference from Stephen's themes. The debate rests on how directly Luke reports the charges. |
| Does the absence of 'blasphemous' in some manuscripts change the meaning? | The accusation speaks against 'the holy place and the law' regardless of the adjective. | Cambridge and Gill note that the best manuscripts omit βλάσφημα. If the adjective is original, the witnesses intensified the charge; if not, they still framed any criticism of temple or law as inherently blasphemous. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The temple and the law were the twin pillars of Jewish identity in the first century. The temple was the dwelling place of God’s presence; the law was the covenant charter of the nation. Anyone who seemed to undermine either faced severe reaction. Paul later denied a similar charge in Acts 25:8: “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all.” The accusation against Stephen echoes that against Jesus Himself, in Matthew 26:61 false witnesses said Jesus claimed to destroy the temple, and foreshadows the later complaint against Paul in Acts 21:28.
Stephen, a Hellenistic Jew, likely taught what earlier Christian tradition held: that Jesus had fulfilled the law and that the temple’s physical worship pointed to a new, spiritual order. His defense in Acts 7 traces God’s presence with His people outside any fixed building, culminating in the vision of Jesus standing at God’s right hand. The false witnesses seized on this discourse and rephrased it as a direct threat. The phrase “this holy place” (τούτου τοῦ ἁγίου τόπου) carries deep emotional weight, the temple was the centre of national hope. By accusing Stephen of perpetual blasphemy (“ceaseth not,” present tense continuous action), they painted him as an inveterate enemy of God’s institutions. The Sanhedrin’s willingness to accept such witnesses shows how high tensions ran in the years before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Luke’s careful framing, “they set up false witnesses”, recalls Psalm 27:12 and Psalm 35:11, showing that the pattern of the righteous being attacked by lying accusers was nothing new. Stephen walks the path of the suffering servant.
Textual Notes
The word βλάσφημα (blasphemous) is absent from key early manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Both the Cambridge Bible and Gill’s Exposition note that the best authorities omit it. The word may have been added by scribes to align this verse with Acts 6:11, where “blasphemous words against Moses and God” appears. The omission does not change the gravity of the charge: speaking against the temple and the law was itself considered blasphemy.
Reception History
This verse has been central to Christian reflection on martyrdom and the perversion of truth. Early church fathers saw Stephen’s trial as a direct parallel to Christ’s, both faced false witnesses who twisted their words about the temple. In the centuries after AD 70, when the temple was destroyed, Christians read Acts 6:13 as fulfilled prophecy: Stephen’s “threat” had become God’s judgment. The accusation has also been used in Jewish-Christian dialogue to illustrate how early Christians were misunderstood by their Jewish contemporaries. During the Reformation, commentators like Calvin and Gill pointed to the verse as a warning against using half-truths to condemn opponents. Its pattern of false witness continues to speak to contexts where religious leaders are silenced through misrepresentation.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The accusation: The false witnesses charge Stephen with speaking against the temple and the law, the two most sacred institutions of Judaism.
- The perversion: They turned Stephen’s teaching about the new covenant into a charge of blasphemy. What was truth became a weapon.
- The prototype: Stephen follows Jesus, both are condemned by false witnesses who twist genuine words into capital crimes.
Five-point outline
- False witnesses are a biblical pattern (Psalms 27:12; 35:11; 56:5; Matthew 26:60-61).
- The charge is a triple accusation: against the holy place, against the law, and against Moses (Acts 6:11).
- The falseness is in the spin, not the words. The witnesses may have reported actual sayings of Stephen, but they twisted his meaning.
- The emotional trigger: Talk of the temple’s destruction always inflamed Jewish listeners (Matthew 24:15; Daniel 9:26-27).
- Stephen’s response: His defense (Acts 7) reinterprets the temple and law as shadows pointing to Christ, which the council rejects.
Illustration hooks
- The twisted quote: A student quotes a teacher accurately but strips out context, making them sound like they said the opposite. People who weren’t there hear only the damaging version.
- The institution as sacred cow: A pastor suggests the church building could be sold to fund mission. Critics say he “wants to tear down the church.” They report his words, not his meaning.
- The continuous accusation: “He never stops speaking against…”, the present tense in the Greek. Once a reputation for dissidence sticks, everything said is heard through that filter.
Questions your congregation is asking
- If the witnesses are false, why does the council accept their testimony? (Tensions were high, and the leaders were already hostile.)
- Is it ever right to speak in ways that can be misunderstood? (Stephen did not soften his message, even knowing the risk.)
- How should we respond when our words are twisted? (Stephen’s calm face, like an angel, shows he trusted God with the outcome.)
Leading a Discussion
This passage forces us to consider how easily true statements can be turned into false accusations. Stephen taught that the temple and law were fulfilled in Jesus, a message of hope, but his enemies heard only threat. As a group, work through the text to see how the charge was shaped, and how we might guard against the same dynamic in our own lives and churches.
Discussion questions
- What does the phrase “set up false witnesses” tell us about the planning behind the accusation (Acts 6:11-13)?
- The witnesses say Stephen “never stops speaking” against the temple and law. What effect would this present-tense, continuous language have on the council?
- Cross-reference Matthew 26:59-61 and Acts 21:28. How does the accusation against Stephen echo the accusations against Jesus and later Paul?
- Why did the opponents focus on the temple and the law? What made these two targets so powerful in a Jewish court?
- If Stephen had said something like “the temple will be destroyed” (as Jesus did in Matthew 24), was he wrong to say it? Was the resulting charge only false because of the spin?
- In what situations today do Christians face similar distortions of their words, especially regarding worship styles, doctrinal change, or social issues?
- How can we speak truth in a way that is clear, even when we know some will twist it? Is clarity always possible?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Psalms 27:12 | Don’t deliver me over to the desire of my adversaries, for false witnesses have risen up against me, such as breathe out cruelty. |
| Psalms 35:11 | Unrighteous witnesses rise up. They ask me about things that I don’t know about. |
| Psalms 56:5 | All day long they twist my words. All their thoughts are against me for evil. |
| Matthew 24:15 | “When, therefore, you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), |
| Acts 6:11 | Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” |
| Acts 7:58 | They threw him out of the city and stoned him. The witnesses placed their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. |
| Acts 21:28 | crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place. Moreover, he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place!” |
| Acts 25:8 | while he said in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all.” |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
6 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes argues the witnesses against Stephen were false not merely because they twisted his words, but because it is highly improbable Stephen ever spoke those words at all. Jesus never claimed He would destroy the temple, and the apostles only gradually understood that Jewish customs would change. The testimony was likely fabricated to inflame the crowd.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The false witnesses twisted Stephen's teaching that worship was no longer confined to the Jerusalem Temple, perverting it into blasphemy against the Temple and the law, just as they had twisted Jesus' words about the temple. The commentary notes that the charge of blasphemy reveals how narrowly they equated God with the Temple and its ritual.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note emphasizes that the witnesses against Stephen were false. Their specific accusation was that he continually spoke blasphemous words against the Temple and the Law, the two central pillars of Jewish religious identity.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill identifies the false witnesses' specific charge: Stephen continually told the people the temple would be destroyed and the ceremonial law ended. He notes some ancient manuscripts omit the word "blasphemous," but speaking against the temple and law alone was enough to make the accusation hold.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange notes that Stephen, though only a deacon and not an apostle, performed miracles and spoke with such wisdom that his opponents could not resist. His face shone with an actual supernatural light, revealing divine glory even to his enemies. The apostles felt no envy, since Christ freely imparts gifts to whomever He chooses.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry emphasizes that Stephen did not consider the humble work of distributing charity beneath him. Being faithful in a small, practical office, he was then entrusted with greater, more visible service, including working miracles and defending the gospel.