Γένος οὖν ὑπάρχοντες τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ὀφείλομεν νομίζειν χρυσῷ ἢ ἀργύρῳ ἢ λίθῳ, χαράγματι τέχνης καὶ ἐνθυμήσεως ἀνθρώπου, τὸ θεῖον εἶναι ὅμοιον. (Acts 17:29)
Being therefore offspring of God, we ought not to think the divine is like gold or silver or stone, a carving of art and human imagination.
Word Order as Theology: Repositioning the Divine
In Acts 17:29, Paul delivers a striking rejection of idolatry through precise and deliberate Greek syntax. The fronted participial phrase γένος οὖν ὑπάρχοντες (“Being therefore offspring”) introduces the basis of Paul’s argument, placing the identity of humans in relationship to God as the foundational premise. This temporal participle implies an existing reality — our ontological status as γένος (offspring) of Θεός. The clause that follows (οὐκ ὀφείλομεν νομίζειν…) expresses the logical consequence of that truth. Greek word order here builds a chiastic rhetorical shape: who we are → what we must not do → the object we misjudge → the source of that misjudgment. The divine is placed at the end of the sentence (τὸ θεῖον) but is not the grammatical object—it is the subject of the infinitive εἶναι. This ordering pushes the audience to reflect backward through the chain of assumptions they’ve inherited.
Tense, Mood, and the Moral Obligation
The main verb ὀφείλομεν (we ought) is in the present indicative active, conveying a continuous, binding obligation. This is not a one-time philosophical correction; it is an ongoing imperative grounded in human nature as divine offspring. The infinitive νομίζειν (to think/suppose) is an object complement of ὀφείλομεν and forms a purpose clause — that is, what we ought not be doing. Together, they create a structure that both affirms duty and negates false worship. The use of the infinitive of indirect statement with εἶναι ὅμοιον at the end reveals the cognitive error being addressed: treating τὸ θεῖον as ontologically equivalent to lifeless material. The mood of Paul’s grammar is forceful yet elegant — argumentation through ontological reality.
Case Study: The Accusative-Infinitive Construction
One of the most important syntactic elements in this verse is the accusative-infinitive construction:
τὸ θεῖον εἶναι ὅμοιον.
This structure is a classic case of indirect discourse in Koine Greek. The accusative τὸ θεῖον (the divine being) is the subject of the infinitive εἶναι (to be), and ὅμοιον (like/similar) is the predicate adjective, agreeing in case, number, and gender with τὸ θεῖον. This elegant construction communicates the mistaken belief Paul targets: that the divine nature is similar to gold, silver, or carved stone. Greek here allows abstract philosophical refutation with precision—striking at the Platonic and popular Greek assumptions about visible representations of gods.
Material Imagery and Semantics: Gold, Silver, Stone
The trio χρυσῷ ἢ ἀργύρῳ ἢ λίθῳ (gold or silver or stone) occurs in the dative case, indicating the standard of comparison after ὅμοιον. These elements symbolize the material mediums of idol worship. The addition of the phrase χαράγματι τέχνης καὶ ἐνθυμήσεως ἀνθρώπου (a carving of art and human imagination) deepens the critique. χαράγματι (engraving/carving) is in apposition to the previous nouns and is also in the dative, revealing the tools of idolatry—not only the materials, but the mental and artistic efforts of fallen humanity. The genitives τέχνης and ἐνθυμήσεως (craft and reflection/thought) show the sources of this false image—not divine revelation but human projection. This combination is a devastating theological statement: even the most beautiful, reflective, and artistic expressions are insufficient and inappropriate representations of God.
Table: Parsing the Key Verbs and Infinitives
| Greek Form | Lemma | Parsing | Function |
|---|---|---|---|
| ὑπάρχοντες | ὑπάρχω | Present Active Participle, Nominative Masculine Plural | Temporal participle introducing condition: “being” |
| ὀφείλομεν | ὀφείλω | Present Active Indicative, 1st Person Plural | Main verb: moral obligation “we ought” |
| νομίζειν | νομίζω | Present Active Infinitive | Complementary infinitive: “to think/suppose” |
| εἶναι | εἰμί | Present Infinitive | Infinitive of indirect statement |
Discourse Dynamics: Athenian Philosophy vs. Hebraic Revelation
This verse serves as a climax in Paul’s Areopagus speech. The grammar not only rebuts polytheism but subtly affirms the transcendent, invisible God of the Hebrew Scriptures. The language is both philosophically elevated and theologically precise. The participial phrase γένος… ὑπάρχοντες echoes Stoic terminology, acknowledging a shared conceptual framework with Greek thinkers. Yet, Paul subverts that framework with a grammatical counter-punch: divine nature cannot be captured by τέχνη or ἐνθύμησις — art or imagination. The grammar thus orchestrates a gentle yet uncompromising theological polemic: a shift from Anthropotheism (man-made gods) to Theanthropism (God revealing Himself).
Where Syntax Meets Destiny
At first glance, Acts 17:29 appears to be a rational argument against idolatry. But grammar reveals its deeper pulse. Every participle, case, and infinitive builds a logical and theological scaffold that guides the Athenian mind from image to essence. Paul’s Greek is not ornamental but surgical — dismantling worldviews one syntactic unit at a time. And in doing so, he offers an invitation: abandon the idol of human imagination and discover the God who cannot be carved, but only known.
