These examples give some more detail concerning the continuity of God’s people.
Acts 1:20
καὶ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λάβοι ἕτερος·
… let another take over his position.
Psalm 109:8 (LXX 108:8)
τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω ἕτερος.
… let another take his position.
Acts 1:20
The verbal change we are concerned with here is from the optative mood (λάβοι) to an imperative (λαβέτω). Psalm 109 is a prayer, and thus we ought to understand the optative as a respectful request (although in the sovereignty of God, this does not necessarily mean uncertainty).[1] Acts 1:15–20 is a recounting and commentary on Judas’ fate, applying Psalms 69 and 109 to Judas as an example of God’s enemies.[2] Given this is a case of a posteriori theology the move along the spectrum from ‘potentiality’ to ‘actuality’ echoes the certainty with which Luke relates these events as acts according to God’s will.[3] This is done, however, without suggesting that Judas was the primary reference of the Psalm.[4] In doing so, however, the story concerning Jesus and those around him is connected closely to the earlier grand narrative of God’s interactions with his people.
Acts 7:5
Τῷ σπέρματί σου δώσω τὴν γῆν ταύτην.
I will give this land to your offspring.
Genesis 12:7
ὅτι πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, ἣν σὺ ὁρᾷς, σοὶ δώσω αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος.
… for I will give you and your offspring forever all the land that you see.
Genesis 13:15
καὶ δώσω σοι καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου μετὰ σὲ τὴν γῆν,
And to you and your offspring after you I will give the land
Genesis 17:8
καὶ δώσω σοι τὴν γῆν ταύτην καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου μετὰ σὲ εἰς κατάσχεσιν αἰώνιον.
… and I will give this land as an eternal possession to your descendants to come.
Genesis 48:4
καὶ ἐπηγγείλατο δοῦναι αὐτῷ εἰς κατάσχεσιν αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ᾿ αὐτόν,
… but He promised to give it to him as a possession, and to his descendants after him,
Acts 7:5
Stephen’s summary of salvation history in Acts 7 covers both this instance and the next (Acts 7:40). His reference to God’s promise of descendants who would possess the land has its source in a number of Genesis texts, all of which have God speaking to Abraham in the first person (δώσω).[5] Stephen’s version, however, is reported speech, and consists of an aorist middle indicative and complementary aorist active infinitive. A rhetorical effect of this is that emphasis falls on God’s promise, which is held in tension with the rebelliousness of the Israelites throughout history (cf. Acts 7:17, 51). As with other instances discussed above, a change from future to aorist does not signal a change in aspect, rather a possible change in (direct) temporal reference. For Stephen, then, the promise made to Abraham had already been fulfilled. An aorist indicative-infinitive construction is entirely appropriate to emphasise the promise and the word of God, in keeping with the emphases of Stephen’s speech. It’s interesting to note Stephen’s approach to the exact words: pretty chilled.
Acts 7:40
καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Ἀνάστηθι καὶ ποίησον ἡμῖν θεούς, οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν· ὁ γὰρ Μωυσῆς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, οὐκ οἴδαμεν, τί γέγονεν αὐτῷ.
… and they said to him, “Come, make us a god who will go before us because this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!”
Exodus 32:1
λέγουσιν γάρ μοι Ποίησον ἡμῖν θεούς, οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν· ὁ γὰρ Μωυσῆς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, οὐκ οἴδαμεν, τί γέγονεν αὐτῷ.
They said to me, “Make us a god who will go before us because this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!”
Exodus 32:23
εἰπόντες τῷ Ἀαρών· ποίησον ἡμῖν θεοὺς οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν· ὁ γὰρ Μωϋσῆς οὗτος, ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί ἐγένετο αὐτῷ.
They told Aaron: “Make us gods who will go before us. As for this Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we don’t know what’s become of him.”
Acts 7:40
While the phrase echoed in Acts 7:40 is present in both Exodus 32:1 and 32:23, the latter reference should be taken as the direct antecedent based on the context of Stephen’s speech. Both Exodus 32:23 and Stephen’s summary are linked to the events immediately beforehand. Aaron has insisted that the people are evil; according to Stephen they had turned their hearts back to Egypt (Exod 32:22; Acts 7:39). The present indicative λέγουσιν in Exodus 32:23 is logically subordinate to the preceding clause (by the conjunction γάρ), so Stephen’s alteration to an aorist participle (εἰπόντες) makes the connection both syntactically and logically subordinate. Further to this, the common pragmatic use of the aorist participle is to supply antecedent information, as is the case here concerning what the people said to Aaron.[6]
The use of the perfect forms οἴδαμεν and γέγονεν together in Exodus appears to be an instance of the historical perfect, which functions similarly to an aorist. The aspectual opposition to the aorist form lends it heightened prominence, a natural outworking of its proximate-imperfective aspectual value (In Con Campbell’s schema, the perfect tense-form is imperfective in aspect, with a spatial value of ‘heightened proximity’—so up close to the action).[7] Γίνομαι is the only lexeme used as a historical perfect outside of the usual verbs of propulsion or introduction of discourse. Particularly in 32:1 this exclamation—‘we don’t even know what has become of him!’—forms the basis for the Israelite’s rejection of Moses’ leadership, and ultimately Yahweh himself.[8] Stephen’s version, however, is part of a long history of Israel in which God demonstrated his faithfulness but the people were stubborn and rebellious (cf. Acts 7:51). Additionally, Stephen supplies the root reason for the people’s rebellion, namely their longing for the relative security and comfort—and idolatry—of Egypt (Acts 7:39).[9] The people’s stated reason for their idolatry is therefore given less significance in Stephen’s discourse, and he uses the aorist form ἐγένετο to state the matter simply. Once again we see that form follows content: Israel’s spiritual poverty is shown clearly both by the content of Stephen’s narrative, and by how it is told.
1 Corinthians 5:13
ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν.
You must purge the evil from you.
Deuteronomy 17:7
ἐξάρατε τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν.
Put away the evil person from among yourselves.
1 Corinthians 5:13
Deuteronomy is a programmatic passage for Israel’s (future) life in the land living according to God’s law. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is concerned with the current state of the church and the ungodliness occurring in their midst. In light of this, the future tense has been removed from this statement to be more clearly a general statement broadly applicable (and in this instance, quite specifically applicable) at the present time.[10] In accordance with the command for Israel’s life in the land, the believing community must act to banish the incestuous man both for their own sake and for his.[11]
[1] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond The Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 481–82.
[2] Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 87.
[3] The optative and subjunctive moods are generally considered to lie more to the end of potential action, wheras the imperative and indicative are commonly associate with concrete action. These of course are generalisations, and are concepts that sit on a spectrum of ‘potentiality’/'actuality’. See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 446.
[4] Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 125.
[5] Genesis 17:8 reads διδωμι in a number of manuscripts, but the remaining textual evidence and parallels to other (textually secure) instances push for the text as given. See John William Wevers, ed., Genesis (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), Genesis 17:8.
[6] Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Greek; New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 18.
[7] Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 193, 199.
[8] Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Louisville: Westminster Press, 1974), 564, 569–70.
[9] Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 259.
[10] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 417–18.
[11] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 227; David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Series; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 191.