Revisiting Acts 13:48

[darinhouston]

excellent, Tychicus!

[Sean]

Hey that sounds good to me too.

[Tychicus]

Thanks all for the kind words. Yes, mattrose, I just looked at your posts and see the same thing there (just fewer words). You are right, focusing on the meaning of "appointed" is a bit off-track; the main thing is that Luke was talking about the group (Gentiles and/or the "Galatian people-group") rather than the individuals. Reading Acts 13:48 as individuals is a non-sequitor in the context of the passage.

However, with all due respect to Steve, I think James White is correct that it is God who does the appointing. Not that I expect Dr. White would agree with much else in this reading.

God bless.

Tychicus

[look2jesus]

As I read through all the posts, my thought concerning the second half of vs. 48 was that it seems inextricably tied to the middle of vs. 46--so that whereas, concerning eternal life, the Jews had reviled Paul for his message showing that they counted themselves unworthy (Matt pointed out the volitional nature of that sentiment), the Gentiles, by receiving the message, showed that they were disposed to it. IMO vs. 48 is simply putting emphasis on those in the crowd who believed, as opposed to others, not giving us a teaching about election. To my mind, the connection between verses 46 and 48 will not permit a calvinistic understanding of election to be inserted here. It certainly isn't conclusive.

Sean--When you were writing about the gentiles being disposed to the message and the timing of it, was there any reason that their dispositions could not have changed immediately upon the hearing of the message, i.e., at the larger gathering the next week? I think you were addressing something James White had said during the debate.
l2j

[Sean]

Sean--When you were writing about the gentiles being disposed to the message and the timing of it, was there any reason that their dispositions could not have changed immediately upon the hearing of the message, i.e., at the larger gathering the next week? I think you were addressing something James White had said during the debate.
l2j

I guess it's possible that their dispositions could have changed upon hearing the message but the way I understand this at the moment is that these people were already inclinded to respond positively to the message.

I don't have a problem with Acts 13:48 saying that God appointed those who would believe. Not only does God know the future but He also knows who has a desire to honor God. This is why I gave the Cornelius example. Cornelius was certainly a man that God appointed to eternal life before hearing the message of salvation. God is the one who sent Peter to deliver the message. We can see that reading the story in Acts that Cornelius certainly had a predisposition to please God and at the same time God had appointed him to eteranl life.

[Tychicus]

As I read through all the posts, my thought concerning the second half of vs. 48 was that it seems inextricably tied to the middle of vs. 46--so that whereas, concerning eternal life, the Jews had reviled Paul for his message showing that they counted themselves unworthy (Matt pointed out the volitional nature of that sentiment), the Gentiles, by receiving the message, showed that they were disposed to it.

I just checked in the NET bible on v. 48, and they have a note on "eternal life" that makes this same connection with v 46. So it looks like your point is well accepted. But I was actually hoping they would have a note on "appointed" explaining why they chose that instead of "disposed". But no such luck; they probably think there is little debate on that question.

Getting back to your point, I would agree that the Gentiles showed they were disposed to eternal life, or at least that they accepted the message, however you might say it. However Luke (quoting the apostles) doesn't pursue this point. Instead he (and they) make the point that these events are all according to the scriptures (per Isaiah 49: "I have made you a light to the Gentiles"). In other words, God chose (or appointed) the Gentiles long ago; even the Jewish scriptures said so! This answered THE pivotal theological question of the time (does God appoint Jews only, or does he appoint Gentiles too?).

And this is the point in mind as Luke writes verse 48. Is is not about how individual people are chosen; instead it is further confirming the message in v 47: God appointed the Gentiles long ago, and now, look, the Gentiles are responding! This all seems very clear (at least to me).

And so, when you get to 48b ("all who had been appointed for eternal life believed", however you want to translate it), why would you think this is referring to individuals being appointed, rather than "the Gentiles", or "this people-group among the Gentiles", being appointed, per the preceding context?

[Sean]

And this is the point in mind as Luke writes verse 48. Is is not about how individual people are chosen; instead it is further confirming the message in v 47: God appointed the Gentiles long ago, and now, look, the Gentiles are responding! This all seems very clear (at least to me).

And so, when you get to 48b ("all who had been appointed for eternal life believed", however you want to translate it), why would you think this is referring to individuals being appointed, rather than "the Gentiles", or "this people-group among the Gentiles", being appointed, per the preceding context?

I would think that a Calvinist would respond this way: The text says that of all the people who were there (namely, a large group of Gentiles after verse 46) as many as were appointed believed. In other words, the appointed Gentiles believed and the others did not. Luke seems to be making an individualistic distinction among the Gentiles. At the very least it breaks the Gentiles into two people groups, the appointed to believe group and the others that did not believe. The idea that Luke meant "the Gentiles as a group" were appointed doesn't seem to work because the distinction is made within the Gentile group itself.

[Gernatch]

I'm just darting out the door for work, and I thought this post had already died. But since it didn't, I want to just agree with what Sean just said.

This is the same problem which prevented my original interpretation from working.

Sincerely,
Chris

[mattrose]

We all seem to agree to take 48a as given

But I think of 48b as a summary of the entire context, not as a more detailed examination of 48a

It's not that SOME of the Gentiles believed (the one's appointed).

It's THAT Gentiles believed, revealing that God's mission was to ALL people.

The boundaries around 'salvation' (Israel) were, thus, knocked down. God was continuing to show the expansion of His kingdom to all people, Jew and Gentile alike.

In this interpretation, I frankly prefer 'appointed' to 'disposed'

[Tychicus]

We all seem to agree to take 48a as given

But I think of 48b as a summary of the entire context, not as a more detailed examination of 48a

It's not that SOME of the Gentiles believed (the one's appointed).

It's THAT Gentiles believed, revealing that God's mission was to ALL people.

I'm totally with Mattrose on this one.

I would think that a Calvinist would respond this way: The text says that of all the people who were there (namely, a large group of Gentiles after verse 46) as many as were appointed believed. In other words, the appointed Gentiles believed and the others did not. Luke seems to be making an individualistic distinction among the Gentiles. At the very least it breaks the Gentiles into two people groups, the appointed to believe group and the others that did not believe. The idea that Luke meant "the Gentiles as a group" were appointed doesn't seem to work because the distinction is made within the Gentile group itself.

Sean, are you giving your own response or just the "Calvinist" response as distinct from yours?

Well, I can see how a Calvinist may want to see a distinction between the "appointed Gentile individuals" and the "non-appointed Gentile individuals". But is this distinction really in the text?

The text has:

episteusav hosoi qsan tetagmenoi eis zwqn aiwnion

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

I do not see anything about individuals here, nor any distinction between "appointed" and "non-appointed" Gentiles. You may interpret the verse that way, but short of any contextual support I don't know why you would want to. As Mattrose stated above, reading 48b as a summary of the preceding passage flows perfectly well in context.

In light of the above context, can you think of any compelling reason to take the "God appoints individuals", or "individuals dispose themselves", interpretation of this passage?