[B-Greek] Acts 13:32-33

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Sep 6 02:14:52 EDT 2007


Dear Elizabeth,

Thank you for researching some of the commentators. My comments below:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Acts 13:32-33


> ACTS 13:30 hO DE QEOS HGEIREN AUTON EK NEKRWN,  31 hOS WFQH EPI
> hHMERAS PLEIOUS TOIS SUNANABASIN AUTWi APO THS GALILAIAS EIS
> IEROUSALHM, hOITINES [NUN] EISIN MARTURES AUTOU PROS TON LAON.  32
> KAI hHMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQA THN PROS TOUS PATERAS EPAGGELIAN
> GENOMENHN,  33 hOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS [AUTWN]
> hHMIN ANASTHSAS IHSOUN hWS KAI EN TWi YALMWi GEGRAPTAI TWi DEUTERWi:
> hUIOS MOU EI SU, EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE.  34 hOTI DE ANESTHSEN
> AUTON EK NEKRWN MHKETI MELLONTA hUPOSTREFEIN EIS DIAFQORAN, hOUTWS
> EIRHKEN hOTI DWSW hUMIN TA hOSIA DAUID TA PISTA
>
> RE:  the question about the referent of ANASTHSAS
>
> My first take on this was to agree with Ivar, that ANASTHSAS in ACTS
> 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection. Looking at the more recent
> commentaries on Acts, Barrett (ICC) builds a case for that reading
> sell also Bruce (NICNT 2nd ed.). However, the older works like Meyer
> and Alford state in absolute terms that ANASTHSAS in ACTS 13:33 must
> refer to the resurrection using the obvious arguments based on ACTS
> 13:30 hO DE QEOS HGEIREN AUTON EK NEKRWN and 34 hOTI DE ANESTHSEN
> AUTON EK NEKRWN.

It is important to remember that the words EGEIRW and ANISTHMI do not in
themselves refer to the resurrection. That is why in every case where the
resurrection is in view either we have a direct specification like EK NEKRWN
or it is abundantly clear from context that the resurrection is the topic.
V. 34 is introduced by a DE and there is a different quote connected with
this topic than the quote in v. 33. The themes in v. 32-33 and v. 34 are two
different themes.
One of the most overlooked features of hortatory discourse is that the
themes of such texts are not ordered chronologically, and Western thinkers,
being linear, tend to impose a non-existent step-by-step chronology on the
text. The Hebrew pattern is to use overlapping circles, and this often comes
across even if the text is in Greek, because such patterns are connected to
the level above the sentence, a level that was not well understood by older
commentators, because they lived before the age of discourse studies.
In Acts 13 we have a long speech from v. 16b to 41. It would take too long
to present a detailed literary (or discourse) analysis of the whole text,
but first we have an address in v. 16b. Then we have the first round
(circle) in 17-23. The final theme in v. 23 is that God brought Jesus as the
saviour as he had promised (the forefathers). 24-25 is a digression about
John the Baptist with his two messages: 1) repent and 2) the one coming
after me is greater than me. All of this is an exposition that builds up to
the hortatory (persuasive) elements, which usually start off being indirect
before becoming direct. The first indirect appeal is in v. 26 with a
personal address building rapport followed by the key statement "It is to US
this word of salvation was sent". Notice the highlighted hHMIN here.
V. 27 to 31 is another round of background exposition, telling about how the
Jewish leaders refused to believe that Jesus was the Saviour.
V. 32-33 is the next indirect appeal where again hHMEIS, hUMAS and hHMIN are
highlighted. It connects back to v. 23 and v. 26 and has the same theme
about God sending Jesus to be our Saviour (and King, being the Messiah).
This sending of the Messiah is fulfilling the promises to the forefathers.
Although the suffering and death of the Messiah was prophesied in Isa 53,
there is no promise of a resurrection anywhere in the OT as far as I know,
and Paul does not refer to Isa 53 anyway. To connect vs. 32-33 to 30-31 and
34 rather than to vs. 23 and 26 indicates a failure to appreciate the
hortatory discourse structure of the speech.
Vs. 34-37 has another exposition about the resurrection of Jesus from the
dead. It is introduced as a new theme by the DE in v. 34 and a different
quote. The DE is ignored or rendered by "and" in most translations, but the
NET does have a "but". NASB says "As for the fact that He raised Him up from
the dead.." and NRSV says: "As to his raising him from the dead.." Since
there is no direct and clear prophecy about the resurrection, Paul has to
bend over backwards in order to extend Ps 16:10 from David to Jesus.
vs. 38-41 is now the final appeal which in common fashion contains both a
promise of a reward (salvation and forgiveness) if the advice to believe in
Jesus as the Messiah is followed and a warning if the advice is not
followed.
>
> The biggest problem with the Alford, Meyer, ... reading is the
> presence of the quotation from Psalm 2:7. At first glance this seems
> to be a strange citation if ANASTHSAS refers to the resurrection.
> However, looking into the treatment of Hebrews 1:5a TINI GAR EIPEN
> POTE TWN AGGELWN: hUIOS MOU EI SU, EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE;
> C.Koester (Heb. AB p191) "... most interpreters connect this text
> with Christ's resurrection and exaltation, since the quotation
> supports the exaltation of the Son mentioned in 1:2b ... [long list
> of references] and since in 5:5 (cf.7:28) it refers to the eternal
> high priest in heaven ... Similarly Acts 13:15-41 relates Ps 2:7 to
> Jesus' resurrection (Acts 13:33) ... and in Rom 1:4 ... " [end quote]

How "most interpreters" can connect Heb 1:5a with the resurrection is beyond
me, since there is no mention of the resurrection in the whole chapter.
Rather, the theme is the superiority of Jesus over the angels, and Psalm 2:7
is quoted for its first part: "You are my Son", even though the next verse
does talk about God bringing his firstborn into the world, which is
apparently how Ps 2:7 was normally exegeted by the first Christians as
described in Acts.
In Heb 5:5 there is again no mention of or hint to the resurrection. The
point there is that Christ was a special and different high priest, partly
because he was the Son of God as no other high priest could be.

>
> ROM. 1:3 PERI TOU hUIOU AUTOU TOU GENOMENOU EK SPERMATOS DAUID KATA
> SARKA,  4 TOU hORISQENTOS hUIOU QEOU EN DUNAMEI KATA PNEUMA
> hAGIWSUNHS EX ANASTASEWS NEKRWN, IHSOU CRISTOU TOU KURIOU hHMWN,

This is clearly about the resurrection as we have NEKRWN. This is a kind of
proof that helped to define (hORIZEIN) Jesus as the Son of God, but there is
no thematic relationship to Acts 13:33

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list