From BDAG Greek-English Lexicon:
ἀναδείκνυμι fut. ἀναδείξω LXX; 1 aor. ἀνέδειξα; pf. ἀναδέδειχα LXX. Pass.: fut. ἀναδειχθήσομαι; 1 aor. ἀνεδείχθην; perf. ptc. ἀναδεδειγμένος (all these pass. LXX) (Soph., Hdt. et al.; ins, LXX; TestJos 2:7; Philo, Sacr. Abel. 35; Joseph., Tat.) ‘show forth’.
① to make someth. known by clear indication, show clearly, reveal someth. hidden (cp. IAndrosIsis, Ios 19 Peek p. 123; 2 Macc 2:8; SibOr 3, 15) τινά Ac 1:24; πῶς Ox 1081, 31f (SJCh 90, 70f). W. ἐν exhibit, display someth. in someth. ἱνα δικαιοσύνης ναὸν ἐν τῷ τοίῳ σώματι ἀναδείξῃ so as to display the temple of uprightness in that selfsame body AcPlCor 2:17.
② to assign to a task or position, appoint, commission (freq. as administrative term [s. next entry]; Polyb. 4, 48, 3; 4, 51, 3; Diod S 1, 66, 1; 13, 98, 1; Plut., Caes. 725 [37, 2]; OGI 625, 7; PErl 18, 19; Da 1:11, 20; 1 Esdr 8:23; 2 Macc 9:23, 25 al.; Jos., Ant. 14, 280; 20, 227; Tat. 7, 2 θεόν as God) ἀνέδειξεν (ἐνέδ. P75) ὁ κύριος ἑτέρους ἑβδομήκοντα Lk 10:1.—EPeterson, Deissmann Festschr. 1927, 320–26.—M-M. TW.
My observations:
1) ἀναδείκνυμι occurs only twice in the GNT, that's hardly enough evidence to make a firm decision on its potential relevance to Christology.
2) If you'll notice, each occurrence apparently has a different sense, one from the other. How it's used in Luke is not how the word is employed in Acts.
3) Let's say that Luke uses ἀναδείκνυμι to delineate Jesus' activity in his Synoptic Gospel. Does that mean he couldn't apply the word to the Father in Acts 1:24? That would be like saying that because God loves humankind and Jesus loves humankind, therefore Jesus must be God. Yet performing the same action does not necessarily place two entities on level footing as shown by the fact that Gabriel could love humankind too; however, that would not make Gabriel ontologically equal to Jehovah.
4) Jesus is clearly not the referent of Acts 15:8, but God is. It makes better sense to apply Acts 1:24 to the one clearly described as the knower of hearts by Luke. Moreover, see the prayer in Acts 4:24-31. The Father is addressed as "Sovereign Lord."
My observations:
1) ἀναδείκνυμι occurs only twice in the GNT, that's hardly enough evidence to make a firm decision on its potential relevance to Christology.
2) If you'll notice, each occurrence apparently has a different sense, one from the other. How it's used in Luke is not how the word is employed in Acts.
3) Let's say that Luke uses ἀναδείκνυμι to delineate Jesus' activity in his Synoptic Gospel. Does that mean he couldn't apply the word to the Father in Acts 1:24? That would be like saying that because God loves humankind and Jesus loves humankind, therefore Jesus must be God. Yet performing the same action does not necessarily place two entities on level footing as shown by the fact that Gabriel could love humankind too; however, that would not make Gabriel ontologically equal to Jehovah.
4) Jesus is clearly not the referent of Acts 15:8, but God is. It makes better sense to apply Acts 1:24 to the one clearly described as the knower of hearts by Luke. Moreover, see the prayer in Acts 4:24-31. The Father is addressed as "Sovereign Lord."
9 comments:
1. It is not the use of ONLY this word, but it along with others that are also used in Acts 1:24-25. See my second post.
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2021/10/acts-124-comments-from-scholars.html
2. See point 1.
3. See point 1.
4. That God is referred to as the heart-knower does not rule out what is taught in Acts 1:24 in reference to Jesus. Luke would teach the Lord Jesus possesses this same knowledge (Luke 6:7-9) as would John (John 2:24-25; Revelation 2:23) and Peter (1 Peter 2:25) as well as Paul (1 Corinthians 4:5).
a. Simon Kistemaker: Even if Luke elsewhere writes, "God, who knows the heart" (15:8), the context itself shows that Peter refers to the Lord Jesus (v. 21). In addition, the verb have chosen occurs in verse 2, where Jesus is the subject (Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, page 67).
b. Alan Thompson: One other distant use of the term is not enough evidence to outweigh the nearer context of Acts 1:2 (One Lord, One People: The Unity of the Church in Acts in Its Literary Setting, page 67, footnote #67).
c. Nigel Turner: Kardiognōstēs is a coinage formed from existing words. It probably belongs to an early liturgical vocabulary, forming part of believers' prayer. At a meeting before the day of Pentecost Christ is addressed as, 'Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men' (Acts 1:24), and Peter at the council of Jerusalem testifies concerning 'God, which knoweth the hearts' (15:8) (Christian Words, kardiognōstēs, page 202).
C. K. Barrett: Some (e.g. Conzelmann 25) take the Lord addressed to be God, but it is much more probable that Jesus is intended ('nam huius erat apostolum eligere', Bengel); he is asked to show (anadeixon, cf. Lk. 10.1) which of the two men he has chosen (exelechō; cf. 1:2; Lk. 6.13; also Prov. 16.33). That kardiognōstes appears to be applied in 15.8 to the Father is not against this (though see Clarke, DH 196f.). (The Acts of the Apostles, The International Critical Commentary, Volume 1, page 103)
I know what your claims are, but I believe they're deficient. Duncan said it well. One point has to be clarified/treated before moving to another. You throw out a bunch of proof-texts and think you've achieved something. However, I prefer not to proof-text but to analyze and study matters: I handle things in my own due time, as circumstances permit. If you really want answers, you'll listen, not just argue. However, I'm dealing with ideas/concepts, not any one particular individual now. Feel free to read the blog if you so desire. No one is coercing you to be here.
The immediate context is important and often determinative, but not always. Other factors must be taken into consideration. Besides, you're hanging a lot on a word that only appears twice in the GNT.
As I also said earlier, I've been commanded to pray to Jehovah, God the Father. On the other hand, the Bible never imperativally tells me to offer prayer to Jesus. Not once. Remember that a command is an imperatival speech act.
Nigel Turner assumes that knower of hearts described Christ but the verse doesn't actually say that. I've got plenty more on Acts 1:24 but the bottom line is that you expect us to believe that a group of Jews who just experienced a freshly killed Messiah raised from the dead and ascended would depart from their usual custom of praying to the "Sovereign Lord" (Acts 4:24-31) and pray to the one appointed as Lord instead? Meanwhile, they later cast lots to YHWH to help with the decision. Such logic stretches credulity. At the very least, Bock makes an excellent point about the lack of clarity for definitely fixing the referent of Acts 1:24. And he's Trinitarian.
I've also been adding to my list of commentators for Acts 1:24, those who say God instead of Jesus.
I have already clarified the use of these words as used elswhere in referencr to the Lord in thr passages supplied. Asking for clarification is simply a cop-out.
It is irrelevant if the Bible never commands 'you' to offer prayers to Jesus in that prayers were offered to Him in the New Testament. Furthermore, your assertion is simply wrong. We are commanded to believe the gospel. And the gospel that is to be believed includes calling on the name of the Lord Jesus in prayer (Romans 10:13).
You don't have anything else on Acts 1:24 despite your claim of having plenty more. What you do have is evasiveness to the points I made. The Greek word for "lots" in Acts 1:26 is klēros. It is also used in Acts 1:17 in association with the "ministry" Judas once held. This "ministry" was now to be filled by asking the Lord Jesus in prayer to "show" the person He has "chosen" - and lots were given for Him to make that choice.
I have plenty in my list of those who say that it is a prayer to Jesus in Acts 1:24-25. Even still, the evidence I have presented keeps getting ignored.
Jesus being able to read heart is barely relevant here. His knowledge/ability was from his God and Father.
In the OT, David is told to have as much wisdom as the angel of God and to know everything that is in the land (2 Sam 14:20). That doesn't make him God himself.
Also, Jesus is the man God appointed for the judgement, that's why he has this god given ability to read hearts (Rev 2:23).
But here, this isn't about judgement, this is clearly in the more typical jewish context (end of the chapter with the "lot"), so it's normal to say that God is prayed.
Acts 15:7 and Gal 1:15 are clear verses about the fact that God is the one doing the choosing
Jesus appointed his apostles after praying God.
The Bible is clear on the fact that Jesus, the Messiah, is God's shaliach/agent/apostle, through whom God was working wonders.
https://biblehub.com/greek/kle_rous_2819.htm
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G2819&t=niv&ot=LXX&word=%CE%BA%CE%BB%E1%BD%B5%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82
Two more verses of interest -
https://biblehub.com/greek/epikaloumai_1941.htm
Is this another way of saying that they are calling on a name?
Post a Comment