Acts 13:32

"And we declare to you the promise made to our fathers, that God has fulfilled this to our children." In Greek it reads more consistently: "That God has fulfilled this to their children." It follows:

"And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." But, "He hath raised up Jesus again: This day," he says, "I have begotten thee." Aye, upon this the rest follows of course. Why did he not allege some text by which they would be persuaded that forgiveness of sins is by Him? Because the great point with them was to show, in the first place, that He was risen: this being acknowledged, the other was unquestionable. The reading "In the Second Psalm" is the best attested. If it is correct, we must suppose that what we now call the first psalm was considered introductory and that our second psalm was counted as the first. The expression "this day have I begotten thee" refers evidently to the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection is conceived as the solemn inauguration of Christ into his office as theocratic king represented under the figure of begetting.

Let Celsus, and those who agree with him, tell us whether it is at all like "an ass's shadow" that the Jewish prophets predicted the birth place of him who became the ruler of those who had lived righteous lives and are called the "heritage" of God, that Emmanuel was conceived by a virgin, that such signs and wonders were performed by him who was the subject of prophecy, that his word spread so speedily that the voice of his apostles went forth into all the earth, that he suffered after his condemnation by the Jews, and that he rose again from the dead. For was it by chance that the prophets made these announcements with no conviction of the truth in their minds, moving them not only to speak but to believe their announcements should be committed to writing? And did so great a nation as that of the Jews, who had long ago received a country of their own to dwell in, recognize certain men as prophets and reject others as false prophets, without any conviction of the soundness of the distinction? And was there no motive that induced them to class the words of those persons who were later deemed to be prophets with the books of Moses, which were held as sacred? And can those who charge the Jews and Christians with folly show us how the Jewish nation could have continued to exist had there not been among them a promise of the knowledge of future events? And how, while each of the surrounding nations believed in agreement with their ancient institutions that they received oracles and predictions from those whom they accounted gods, this people alone—who were taught to view with contempt all those who were considered gods by the heathen as not being gods, but demons, according to the declaration of the prophets, "For all the gods of the nations are demons"—had among them no one who professed to be a prophet and who could dissuade those with a desire to know the future from deserting to the demons of other nations? Judge, then, whether it was necessary that the whole nation that had been taught to despise the deities of other lands should have an abundance of prophets, who made known events that were of far greater importance in themselves and that surpassed the oracles of all other countries.