In my
article Latter-day Saint Theology and Acts 17:28-29, I discussed the theology
implications of Paul’s quotation of Pagan poets and the affirmation that we are
the same γενος as God the Father, something that
is consistent with Latter-day Saint anthropology (theology of man).
Recently, a
very errant Evangelical Protestant
attempted to refute the long-standing LDS interpretation of this passage by
appealing to the following paper:
Brent A.
Moody, Function
and Meaning of Pagan Quotations in Acts 17:28
Sadly for
the critic, those who actually read the article will realise that appealing to
this research paper supports, not negates, the Latter-day Saint reading.
Consider the following (emphasis added):
Prior to the speech section (Acts 17:22-31),
Luke shifted the desire for "novelty" onto the pagans (Acts 17:21). Paul's speech provided a reversal when he
connected himself to traditional pagan philosophy and condemned their
idolatrous behavior. (p. 7)
Paul's reference to "your own poets"
points to pagan writers. He used these
pagan authors much like he would Scripture with a Jewish audience. (p. 9)
The second quote, "we are indeed his
offspring" (Acts 17:28b), is from Aratus' Phaenomena. Aratus was a student
of Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism. The idea was common in Stoic
thought. Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus says, "εκ σου γαρ γενος εσμεν"--for
we are your offspring. Luke's third person statement is "Του γαρ και γενος
εσμεν." The ESV translates, "For we are indeed his offspring"
(Acts 17:28). Edward's suggestion that Luke uses Aristobulus' quotation of
Aratus as an immediate source seems legitimate. For my purpose, the immediate
source of Luke's quote is less significant than the fact that these concepts
were well established in Greek philosophy by the second century BC. Ferguson
claims,
Everyone would know Aratus's poem, and this
particular idea does not of itself necessarily indicate any extensive knowledge
of Greek literature.
Most significant is that in the presence of
Stoic opponents Paul quoted Stoic
philosophy in support of his beliefs. Witheringon states, "From a
rhetorical point of view the function of the . . . quotations here is to cite
an authority recognized by one's audience to support one's point."
The pagan origin of the quotes has been
confirmed. The next goal is to consider their meaning. Dibelius' identified
three main themes around which Paul's address is built:
1. God, Creator and Lord of the world, needs no
temples, for he does not stand in need of anything (vv. 24, 25).
2. God created man in order that they should
seek after him (vv. 26, 27)
3. The
relationship of men with God-they 'are offspring of God'--should exclude
all worship of graven images (vv. 28, 29) (pp. 10-12)
Balch's article on the Stoic Posidonius aids in
analyzing the Areopagus speech. Posidonius
believed in the kinship of God to man. Posidonius' opposition to idolatry,
similar to Paul, is affirmed by God's providence:
Greek were also wrong in modelling gods in human
form; for, according to him, God is this one thing alone that encompasses us
all . . . the nature of all that exists . . . What man, then if he has sense,
could be bold enough to fabricate an image of God resembling any creature
amongst us? Nay, people should leave off all image-carving, and, setting apart
a sacred precinct and a worthy sanctuary, should worship God without an image.(pp.
16-17)
Instead of
being problematic to the Latter-day Saint position, this paper provides strong
support thereto. One has to wonder if the critic, a self-proclaimed “Mormon
Studies Scholar,” bothered to read the article in full before endorsing it as a
sound refutation of the common LDS reading of Acts 17:28-29?