Acts 13

13:1–3

Various features of the narrative show that the early church lives in a context broadly shaped by OT piety: the activity of prophets, the description of what went on in the congregational meeting as “service” (leitourgeō is used frequently in the LXX for the activity of the priests), and fasting as a religious practice. The laying on of hands as authorization for religious duties may echo Num. 8:11–12, where the motif of separation (aphorizō) for the work (ergon) of the Lord is also present (Daube 1956: 239–41).

13:11

For “the hand of the LORD” having negative effects, see Judg. 2:15; 1 Sam. 7:13; 12:15; Job 19:21 (see commentary on Acts 4:28 above). Pesch (1986: 2:25) cites Ezek. 13:9 as the most apt parallel. “Not seeing the sun” is language also found in Ps. 58:8. Deuteronomy 28:28–29 (Jervell 1998: 347n434) is less close (see commentary on Acts 22:11 below).

13:15

The reading of the law and the prophets corresponds with known synagogue practice. On the assumption that the sermon following was based on them (see introduction above), attempts have been made to identify the passages read on this occasion. Bowker (1967–1968: 101–4) suggests Deut. 4:25–46 and 2 Sam. 7:6–16, with Paul then using 1 Sam. 13:14 as a bridge between the readings; 13:17–21 functions as an introduction to the sermon in 13:22–41. Barrett (1994–1998: 624 [cf. 1988: 241–42]) recognizes the conjectural character of Bowker’s reconstruction but does not dismiss it as totally unfounded. Pesch (1986: 2:32) takes the proposal seriously and on the basis of it argues that here Luke is editing source material rather than composing freely.

Admittedly, it is hard to see how 1 Sam. 13:14 joins together the alleged two readings or forms the center point of the sermon. Bowker himself admits that the link with Deut. 4 is unsure and can be only “a reasonable guess.” For the identification of the haftarah, Bowker appeals to the work of Doeve (1954: 168–76), who pointed out several coincidences in expression between 13:17–36 and 2 Sam. 7:6–16, and especially notes the parallelism between 1 Sam. 13:14 and 2 Sam. 7:8. Dumais (1976: 67–114) holds that the sermon is based only on 2 Sam. 7 and not also on a seder. For a chart of the parallelism, see Strauss 1995: 154–55; this chart demonstrates the remarkable parallels in thought and structure to 2 Sam. 7 throughout the passage, but there is scarcely any direct use of its language.

Part of the problem is constituted by Bowker’s observation that in rabbinic sermons the preacher aimed to allude to the set readings without actually quoting them. If so, it would seem that almost any tenuous coincidence in thought or expression could be used as a basis for assuming an underlying text. In favor of Bowker’s proposal it can be said that if this was a normal synagogue service, there would have been readings from Scripture, and the preacher may well have had them in mind as he spoke; on that assumption, it could be argued that Bowker’s identification of the passages is not altogether implausible and is superior to any other suggestions that have been offered (for which, see Bowker 1967–1968: 103n1).

For detailed study of the OT citations in 13:32–37, see Lövestam 1961.

A sermon based on Scripture is appropriatedly described as a message of “encouragement” (paraklēsis); cf. 1 Macc. 12:9; 2 Macc. 15:9 (Pesch 1986: 2:33).

13:17

Paul begins with God and his choice of Israel; eklegomai is used often from Deut. 4:37 onward. “Made great” (hypsoō; cf. Isa. 1:2) refers to the increase in population and in power while the Israelites were in Egypt; for the use of paroikia for the sojourn in Egypt, see Wis. 19:10. The TNIV’s “with mighty power” conceals “with an uplifted arm,” a metaphor found in this connection in Exod. 6:1, 6; 32:11; Ps. 136:12. “Brought them out” (exagō) is the appropriate verb used frequently (Deut. 4:37; 2 Sam. 7:6, however, has anagō).

is attached to David’s name in 1 Chron. 10:14; 29:26; Ps. 72:20. “A man after my heart” is a lightly altered citation from God’s words to Saul in 1 Sam. 13:14, where God announces that after Saul’s disobedience at Gilgal he will “seek out” (the preliminary to “finding”?) “a man after his heart” (anthrōpon kata tēn kardian autou). For the combination of 1 Sam. 13:14 and Ps. 89:20, see 1 Clem. 18:1. The words “who will do all my will [lit., ‘wills’]” actually agree with the description of Cyrus as the restorer of Jerusalem in Isa. 44:28 (panta ta thelēmata mou poiēsei). However, the Targum of 1 Sam. 13:14 paraphrases “a man after my heart” with “a man doing his will(s),” and knowledge of the targumic tradition may have exercised an influence here (Wilcox 1965: 21–24; Hanson 1983: 82; cf. Bock 1987: 243). Ellis (1978: 199) finds an allusion to Jer. 30:9 (37:9 LXX), but nothing in the context supports this supposition.

Various points lead Albl (1999: 195–98) to argue that a testimonia collection has been used here. The quotation is a complex one, and the historical details in 13:16–22 (especially the chronology in 13:20) do not seem to have any relevance for Luke’s purpose. The use of the same material in 1 Clem. 18:1, apparently independently of Acts, suggests the existence of a tradition (see Bock 1987: 243) in which there was a review of Israel’s history under divine guidance leading up to the selection of David; this material was originally Jewish and was taken over by Christians who wanted to emphasize the superiority of Jesus to David. This explanation accounts for the material in Acts quite well.

The commendation of David may be meant to set up a typology with David’s descendant, Christ, and to establish the credentials of the latter in view of his pedigree. However, it seems unlikely that Paul is saying, “Just as God replaced Saul by a king who was after his own heart, so also he has replaced David by a king who is even more after his own heart,” which would seem to be the point if Bowker’s analysis of the sermon as a homily on 1 Sam. 13:14 is correct.

This ends the brief account of Israel’s history under the care and initiative of God, which culminates in the appointment of his agents as their rulers.

13:23

So God has brought to Israel a savior from the seed of David in accordance with his promise. The promise probably refers to 2 Sam. 7:12 (cf. 22:51; Ps. 89:29, 36–37; 132:11), now understood to include not merely the immediate continuation of the royal line through Solomon and later kings, but also the renewal of the line in the raising up of the Messiah. Although God is frequently designated as “Savior” in the OT, the Messiah is not; saving is a function of the Servant (Isa. 49:6, cited in 13:47), and it may be relevant that the judges were also so described (Judg. 3:9, 15).

13:34

The thought then moves (note the de making a slight contrast) to the raising of Jesus from the dead, with the emphasis on the fact that Jesus will never return to the corrupting realm of the grave. The reference to corruption shows that Ps. 16:10 is already determining the direction of the discourse. The point at issue seems to be the eternal dominion of the Messiah, which qualifies him to continue in his function as Savior for all time. There is no significant problem with the second citation, but the interpretation of the first is problematic. The words “he has spoken thus” function as the introductory formula. The citation comes from Isa. 55:3 LXX: “And I shall make with you an eternal covenant, the sure, holy things of David” (kai diathēsomai hymin diathēkēn aiōnion, ta hosia Dauid ta pista). The verse is echoed in references to an eternal covenant in 1QS IV, 22; V, 5–6; 1Q28b I, 2–3; II, 25, evidently the covenant that God has made with the sect (Steyn 1995: 177). Dupont (1979: 145–46) raises the question of whether the speaker was directed to this verse because the immediate context refers to David as a witness to the nations (Isa. 55:4; cf. Acts 13:47).

For diathēsomai Acts substitutes “I shall give” (dōsō [probably under the influence of the use of the verb in the next quotation, thus making a link between them]) and omits reference to the covenant (cf. 13:47). Nothing in the argument depends upon the use of the LXX rather than the MT, which has “I shall make an everlasting covenant with you, the sure mercies of David.” The text in Isaiah comes in the context of an invitation to the people to receive God’s gifts and live. He promises that he will make an eternal covenant with them (it can be assumed that this is conditional on their continuing obedience), which is then defined as his acts of faithful love for David (ḥasdê dāwid hanneʾĕmānîm). This seems to indicate that God, having made promises to David, pledged himself to keep them, if not in David’s lifetime, in the ongoing future of his people. The thought is present in 2 Sam. 7:15–16, but again the language is not taken from there. The Hebrew word ḥasdê (plural of ḥesed) means “acts of steadfast love.” But what does the LXX mean? The word hosios means “holy, pious, devout,” and this is its meaning in the citation in 13:35. In Wis. 6:10 the neuter plural may mean “holy things” or perhaps “divine decrees” (LEH 340). Perhaps the latter is the force here in Isa. 55, so that the “eternal covenant” is explained as the “sure divine decree made to David.”

How, then, do we take it here? The promise is to “you” plural (hymin); therefore it is addressed to the hearers, not to the Messiah as an individual. The close connection with the next citation, seen in the repetition of “give” and the word play on hosia/hosios, indicates that the promise must be associated with the fact that the Messiah will not see corruption. Thus we can conclude that the promise made to David in Ps. 16 has been transferred to “you” (Isa. 55) and therefore must refer not to him, but rather to the Messiah (BDAG 728). It is primarily a promise of resurrection from the dead and therefore of everlasting incorruption, but this is significant for “you” in that this implies the permanent dominion of the Messiah, which is made possible only by his resurrection (see Lövestam 1961: 48–81) and hence his ability to save and to forgive (13:38). So the verse is not saying that God will give to Jesus the promise of resurrection that was made to David—that would require that the “you” be singular, not plural; rather, the faithfulness of God to David will continue to be shown to a later generation by God’s raising up of Jesus to be the author of forgiveness and justification (13:38). Thus there is a renewal of the covenantal promises to David through Jesus (Strauss 1995: 166–72).

The hypothesis that the “holy things” are in fact the Holy One (13:35), who rose from the dead and will not see corruption (whereas David did see corruption) (Hanson 1967: 144–45), is “impossible” (Barrett 1994–1998: 647). Likewise, the view that the “holy things” are the blessings that believers receive as a result of God’s redemptive action (Dupont 1967e) probably should be rejected as the primary reference, but these are the blessings that flow from the resurrection of Jesus and are bound up with it (see Bock 1987: 252–54).

13:36

Now the argument is somewhat similar to that in 2:25–31. It is a historical fact that David did die and see corruption. His activity was confined to his own generation, and then he “fell asleep” (2 Sam. 7:12; 1 Kings 2:10) and “was gathered to his ancestors” (Judg. 2:10; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12). But whereas in chapter 2 the use of the psalm is part of the argument regarding the exaltation of Jesus, here the stress is more on the continuing incorruptibility of the risen Jesus, so that he continues to be active as a savior (Bock 1987: 255).

13:39

From what could the law of Moses not justify? Paul’s answer was “everything” (Rom. 3:20). Probably the same is meant here. Theoretically, the law could deal only with unwitting sins, those not committed deliberately, although the practical situation must have been different.

13:46–47

The refusal of the Jews to believe serves as permission for the apostles to go to the Gentiles, who are equally included in God’s purpose of salvation. The apostles have fulfilled the obligation to go first to the Jews, and now they can take up the other part of the commission that has been laid down for them in Scripture. The Lord has given them his command (entetaltai is used appropriately as the introduction to the citation), which they find in the words of Isa. 49:6. In its original form this is part of a statement from Yahweh to his servant Israel, or, more precisely, to whoever has the task of restoring Israel, that the task of restoring Israel is too light an assignment: “I shall give you to be a light for the nations so that my salvation may be to the end of the earth” (MT). The LXX has “Behold, I have given you for a covenant of the nation, for a light to the Gentiles, so that you may be for salvation to the end of the earth.” The addition of “for a covenant of the nation” (eis diathēkēn genous) is not found in any Hebrew version and appears to be simply a case of assimilation to Isa. 42:6. Acts omits “behold” and, more importantly, also omits “for a covenant of the nation,” whether deliberately or because Luke was using a version of the text closer to the MT (note the similar omission in 13:34). Either way, the citation serves to motivate and legitimize the mission to the Gentiles as part of God’s plan foretold in Scripture. “A light of the Gentiles” (phōs ethnōn) clearly means “a light for the Gentiles”; the rest of the clause expresses rather concisely that this will lead to (the bringing of) salvation to the end of the earth (echoing 1:8). But there is also an important echo of Luke 2:32, where similar language is used of Jesus. The mission of the Servant is undertaken both by Jesus (cf. 26:23) and by his followers (see Hanson 1983: 80–81). Here is the scriptural basis for the assertion in Luke 24:47 that the mission is a fulfillment of Scripture (see Pao 2000: 96–101). It is debated whether the speaker of the command here is to be understood as God (Dupont, as cited by Rese) or as Christ (Rese 1979: 77–79).