Revisiting Acts 13:48

[mattrose]

Just a quick google search reveals the extreme disagreement about the meaning of the greek here. For example, a Calvinist writes...

However, the word "believed" in this verse is in the aorist (simple past) tense. The aorist is used simply because Luke was writing at a later date. But if the "appointment" also occurred at the same time, then Luke would have also used the aorist for it. But he did not. He use the perfect.

And an Armianian writes...

The Greek word tasso, appoint, is void of the notion of either time or condition: meaning, Luke does not suggest that the appointing was that which was foreordained from eternity past by God by decree, nor does it suggest that it is unconditional in nature. From the Berean Christian Bible Study Resources, we find:

The force of the pluperfect tense is that it describes an event that, completed in the past, has results that exist in the past as well (in relation to the time of speaking). The pluperfect makes no comment about the results existing up to the time of speaking. Such results may exist at the time of speaking, or they may not; the pluperfect contributes nothing either way.

Personally, I think Luke's meaning is to contrast the unbelieving Jews with the believing Gentiles in the passage. The unbelieving Jews rejected (a volitional term) the gospel and therefore would not have eternal life (v. 46). The believing Gentiles honored (a volitional term) the gospel and therefore would receive eternal life. I think this is undoubtedly Luke's meaning. To infatuate ourselves with presupposed notions about the meaning/timing of 'appointed' is, I think, to miss the point. The people whom God appointed for eternal life that day were the one's who believed. Surely Luke's point is to stress the positiveness of believing (a volitional term) the Gospel.

[Sean]

One concern James White brings up is that even if "disposed themselves" were to be used, the people would have had to have disposed themselves before the message of salvation had been given. This doesn't seem to be a sound argument since the reason the people were gathered on that day was because of something they heard a week before:

Act 13:23 From this man's seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior—Jesus—
Act 13:24 after John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
Act 13:38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Then

Act 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.

So the people gathering already knew what they were gathering to hear about. What was new that week was that they were now going to turn to the Gentiles with this message (Acts 13:46).

So it is at least possible that the people had already heard the message and believed it. The hang up was whether or not it would apply to them, being Gentiles. If it is argued that they didn't yet believe, then why did they show up to hear Paul preach (again)?

Act 13:42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

So these Gentiles, who didn't even believe yet were begging to hear more preaching? I'm not sure why that would be. Unless they did believe it.

What Paul added the following week was the revelation that Gentiles would be allowed forgiveness of sins and eternal life. So those who were already appointed believed. believed what? Maybe believed in Acts 13:48 refers to those Gentiles who already heard the message (last week) but didn't know it was for sure being offered to them. Now that the offer was being made explicitly to them, they were glad and glorified God that they were being extended the offer already mentioned a week earlier.

Maybe it is as simple as God had appointed these people to eternal life who heard the message and believed it a week prior, but until Paul looked at them and extended them the offer they could not lay hold of this. That's why they reacted the way they did:

Act 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord.

When they heard what?

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.

It was when they heard they were turning to the Gentiles, NOT when they heard Paul's sermon already given in Acts 13:16-41 about salvation and forgiveness of sins.

Just a thought.

[steve7150]

Whosoever" is not in the Greek text. The Greek = "the believing ones" or "the ones believing".







Sorry i meant "as many as were" sounds similar to the "whosoever" from John 3.16 , at least to me it does.

[Gernatch]

Sean,

You bring up a very interesting point, and one that I have actually thought of.

If the gentiles were already preached to once before the message of salvation was delivered, and they were earnest to hear the word of God preached on the next sabbath, then it makes perfect sense that they would be "disposed" to eternal life! However, when I first approached the text with this idea, I was reading from the ESV. What I found in Acts 13:42 was this:

Acts 13:42 - As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath.

Notice that the Gentiles didn't do the begging here in the ESV. The Gentiles don't even come into the picture until after verse 44 when the following Sabbath comes. I would be very interested here in knowing if this verse means "The People" or "The Gentiles", because if the gentiles weren't even there, then I don't see how they could have been "disposed" to eternal life, unless we are to assume they heard about it somehow and that it wasn't recorded in scripture.

I'm very glad you pointed this out to me, because after reading the ESV, I became a bit discouraged because it seemed to prove that the Gentiles weren't even on the scene the first time Paul preached.

Sincerely,
Chris

[Sean]

Acts 13:42 - As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath.

Notice that the Gentiles didn't do the begging here in the ESV. The Gentiles don't even come into the picture until after verse 44 when the following Sabbath comes. I would be very interested here in knowing if this verse means "The People" or "The Gentiles", because if the gentiles weren't even there, then I don't see how they could have been "disposed" to eternal life, unless we are to assume they heard about it somehow and that it wasn't recorded in scripture.

I'm very glad you pointed this out to me, because after reading the ESV, I became a bit discouraged because it seemed to prove that the Gentiles weren't even on the scene the first time Paul preached.

Sincerely,
Chris

From what I can tell, the word used for "people" in verse 42 is ethnos (ἔθνος), and is commonly used to mean Gentiles. It is used in these verses:

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles (ethnos).
Act 13:48 Now when the Gentiles (ethnos) heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Act 28:28 "Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles(ethnos), and they will hear it!"
Rom 3:29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles(ethnos)? Yes, of the Gentiles (ethnos) also

In the KJV, the word ethnos (ἔθνος) is translated as Gentiles 93 times.

The other point one could make is that on the second sabbath when nearly the whole town was gathered together (Acts 13:44) that there were certainly more people who were present than on the previous sabbath. It would seem that the Gentiles who heard the first message went and told others until essentially the whole town had heard the message. Otherwise, why would so many people have shown up? I doubt they all bothered to show up not knowing why they were there.

Think of the Cornelius. He could certainly be called "appointed to believe" by God before he heard the message of salvation.

Act 11:12 Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man's house.
Act 11:13 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, 'Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter,
Act 11:14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.'
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'
Act 11:17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"
Act 11:18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."

Cornelius was a man who was disposed (or you could even say appointed) to eternal life before hearing the message. How is this possible? Peter seems to state the reason why here:
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.
Act 10:35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

[Gernatch]

Sean,

I have appreciated your responded thoroughly. I did the research, and you are right. It's unusual that some (if not most) of the translations make "ethnos" out to be "the people". This whole entire verse looks completely different in the KJV then it does in most translations.

Acts 13:42 (KJV) - And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

That's so different from most modern translations.

Acts 13:42 (NLT) - As Paul and Barnabas left the synagogue that day, the people begged them to speak about these things again the next week.

The New Living Translation says absolutely NOTHING about Jews having left the synagogue.

So I can see how the Gentiles were disposed to eternal life before the following Sabbath. They were disposed for whatever reason caused them to come to the synagogue. Obviously word about The Gospel had spread very rapidly in a week's time until nearly the entire town was curious. And of that entire town not all were disposed to eternal life, but those who were, believed. I see how all this is possible. However, it still gets to me that the New World Translation is the only translation that I know of which actually is translated "disposed" to eternal life. And not that we should consider it guilty by association; it's just a reasonable concern to have I guess.

Thanks for your comments,
Chris

[Sean]

Maybe I should clarify. I think appointed is a fine translation for Acts 13:48. God appointed those who believe. The impotant thing to keep in mind is that these people, the ones appointed to believe, were already favorable toward the message from the week prior. So I don't think it can be shown from Acts 13:48 that God acted on these people apart from their already present desire.

I think that God appointed to eternal life those who were open to Paul's message. Just as Cornelius was open to hearing Peter preach to him.

[Tychicus]

Hi.

As a newcomer here, may I take a different look, and ask the question: Why did Luke include this verse in this passage? I am talking specifically of the half-verse "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" (from ESV).

The first thing to notice is that you can take out this half-verse, and the passage still reads fine. The story line is the same. Paul and Barnabas still preach the gospel, many respond, and the word of God spreads throughout the region. There is still the teaching about the Jews rejecting the message and the apostles turning to the Gentiles. So, what exactly is the point of that little clause at the end of v 48?

Both views expressed in the past on this forum agree that Luke is making some kind of point about the believers in Antioch. One view says he is making sure the readers clearly understand that people believe only if they were "predestined" by God to do so before they were born. The other view claims he is explaining that the way you come to belief is to first "become disposed" to believe, and then after that you are able to believe.

Note, however, that nowhere else in Acts 13 does Luke refer to “predestining” or “disposing yourself”. Thus the claim, either way, is that Luke is trying to slip in a whole new teaching within in these 7 Greek words, aided, perhaps, by a careful use of the tenses of the periphrastic.

I would like to propose that the more sensible approach is to consider this little half-verse as a summary or observation of what came before; one which ties the events of Acts 13 into the total storyline of the book of Acts. By doing this we will see exactly what Luke is trying to tell us, instead of getting hung up in this theological quagmire.

As has been noted earlier in this thread, after Paul and Barnabas’s preliminary success, the Jewish leaders rose up in opposition. And thus, the apostles turned to the Gentiles; and they received the word of the Lord with joy.

These events, of course, reflect the major theological discussion of the time: Who was God choosing (or appointing) to eternal life? Sounds a bit like Calvinism vs. Arminianism, doesn’t it? But those were not the two views of the first century since those two luminaries had to wait 1500 years to be born. Instead the views were: 1) God appoints Jews, and thus you must first become a Jew to receive eternal life; and 2) God appoints people of all nations through faith in Christ.

As we know, Paul and Barnabas go with option 2, and the opposing Jews go with option 1. We also see this debate in the letter to the Galatians which was almost certainly written to this very church a few years later.

We see this theme of God’s message to the nations throughout the book of Acts, starting with 1:8 (“you will be my witnesses . . . to the ends of the earth”), Acts 2:39 (“for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call”), and so on. Regarding God’s acceptance of Gentiles we first see that the Syrian Antioch church allowed in Gentiles; then we see how God poured His Spirit on the uncircumcised Roman, Cornelius. And now, for the very first time, we see the Gentiles of an entire region accept the word of Christ en masse. These are exciting times. God’s word (“light to the Gentiles” per Isaiah 49:6 and Acts 13:47) is finally being fulfilled!

And so it’s true. God is appointing people from among all the nations, not just the Jews. The gospel, as preached by Paul and Barnabas, and as predicted by Isaiah, is coming true right before our very eyes. Just as the apostles praised God over the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 11:18: “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life” -- so now Luke praises God as the whole town of Pisidian Antioch comes to faith.

And so this is what the controversial 7 words are all about. It is just a short expression of joy from Luke, reflecting the joy the Gentiles expressed in the first half verse 48. Yes, those [people groups] whom God has appointed for eternal life have believed, as we see right in front of us. It is all [people groups] whom God appointed, not just the Jewish people-group.

Ok, let’s look at the text, lest someone think I am pulling this out of the air. Note this is just 7 Greek words (I am not sure how they’ll line up in your font; just match up the words in order):

episteusav hosoi qsan tetagmenoi eis zwqn aiwnion

they-believed as-many-as were appointed to life eternal

As has been noted by others in this thread, in the first century people often thought in terms of groups rather than individual people. So it is perfectly natural for the hosoi (as-many-as) to stand for people-groups rather than individual unnamed people. Note also that hosoi is a very common word in the NT with a wide range of meaning including “all”, “as many as”, “whatever”, “as long as”, and so on. It is not an exact mathematical term.

As far as the exact translation, I don’t know. The important thing is that the context demands an interpretation along these lines, and the wording of the text can bear that kind of interpretation at least as well as the individualistic interpretations common today, both of Calvinists and Arminians.

If I had to take a crack at the translation I would try something like this:

“They believed. Wow! All the people-groups that God has appointed to eternal life believe.”

I used the word “all” for hosoi, not in a literal sense that every nation has already believed, but that enough has been seen to show that God’s plan to appoint all the nations has been proven to be true (contra the alternative that God has appointed only the Jews). As I said before, hosoi is not a precise mathematical word.

For those of you who have read through this, thank you. Please let me know what you think, pro or con.

[mattrose]

I very much agree with that. It's basically what I was getting at in my 2 posts in this thread, but you worded it much better and more thoroughly

[Homer]

Tychicus,

Thanks for the post! Far too often we in the west overlook the different way people of the east think. We place such a high value on the individual that we have difficulty understanding people who place more importance on the group.

God bless, Homer