Revisiting Acts 13:48

[steve7150]

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




Here is how a Calvinist sees it, by John Macarthur

"One of scriptures clearest statements on the sovereignty of God in salvation. God chooses man for salvation , not the opposite (John 6.65, Eph 1.4, Col 3.12 , 2 Thes 2.13). Faith itself is a gift from God. (Eph 2.8-9).

[Sean]

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

That specific post was how I would imagine a Calvinist would respond.

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.

I'm not sure I follow. The text says "they" believed. Who believed? As many as were appointed to eternal life. Do "they" consist of individuals? Well, yes. It's kind of a strange point your trying to make, meaning, you seem to only be able to see this one way. That it can't be about the group of Gentiles who believed. I can see what you are saying but I've not made up my mind on this point raised by you and Matt. In an earlier post you said:

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).

The problem I see with your point is that Luke had already recorded the answer to this "pivotal theological question" - Does God appoints Jews only or Gentiles too? back in Acts 10 and 11.

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
Act 11:1 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
Act 11:18b "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."

While this news was indeed still spreading, it wasn't as if Acts 13 was the first time Luke had heard of it and recorded it.

[Tychicus]

I'm not sure I follow. The text says "they" believed. Who believed? As many as were appointed to eternal life. Do "they" consist of individuals?

To clarify a bit, in case that makes a difference, there is no explict "they" in the Greek. It is assumed by the verb form. Greek would normally only have an explicit "they" if the writer had some special reason to put it there, e.g. for emphasis. All this technical stuff doesn't mean a whole lot, except that we know that Luke was not going out of his way to emphasize the "they".

As you say, the "they" refers to the "as many as were appointed to eternal life", or as some translations go, "all who were appointed to eternal life". So the question is, what did Luke have in mind when he wrote that phrase?

Do "they" consist of individuals? Well, yes.

Well, yes, technically speaking, "they" consists of indviduals. But the question is whether Luke meant to focus on the individuals, or just to focus on the group as a whole.

For an example, you can say "New Orleans" won the Super Bowl. Is that the same thing as saying "each New Orleans Saint individually" won the Super Bowl? Not exactly. Or, for a sharper contrast, you can say that during the Super Bowl "New Orleans" played a great game. Does that mean each individual player played a great game?

Ok, maybe the Christian gospel is not football, but hopefully you can see that there is a difference between "focusing on the group" and "focusing on the individuals". And when you want to focus on individuals you would use words like "each" or "every". Or, if you want to say "part of", you would use words such as "part" or "some". Greek has words like that, just as well as English. But those words are not in Acts 13:48.

It's kind of a strange point your trying to make, meaning, you seem to only be able to see this one way. That it can't be about the group of Gentiles who believed.

No, I can see it both ways. Luke could be talking about a "group of Gentiles who believed". Luke is certainly capable of expressing that idea if he wanted to. But he is also capable of making a summary statement of the above context ("THAT Gentiles believed, revealing that God's mission was to ALL people", using Mattrose's language).

Let me put it this way. There came a point in time when Luke just finished writing 13:48a, and had a God-inspired thought in his mind as to how to finish that sentence. What was that thought? Was it: A) to cap off the above context with 7 words of potent 1st century theology, or B) make some point about "part of the individuals in the city believed" since it was only the individuals predestined (or disposed) beforehand who could believe?

From the above context, option A is totally sensible. And if, in fact, Luke wanted to express idea A, the Greek wording of 48b would be a perfectly acceptable way to do so.

On the other hand, the context does not provide any indication that Luke would want to express idea B. If he did want to express this idea, you would expect he would put in some language indicator that he was changing topics; but nothing like that exists. Besides, just look at what the verse says: "the Gentiles praised and glorified the word of the Lord; and as-many-as were appointed believed". To me, that seems like an odd way to express idea B. First of all, I'd ask whether 48a refers to "all Gentiles (of the city)" or just "appointed Gentiles"? If it refers to "appointed Gentiles" you would think he would have put the words "as-many-as were appointed" in 48a instead of 48b. If 48a refers to "all Gentiles", what is Luke trying to say? That all the Gentiles praised God, but only a subset of them really believed? If Luke meant to say that, he would certainly put in a word of contrast such as "but". So, either way, the text wording does not at all favor option B.

(Caveat: I understand that any discussion of the wording can get technical, and I don't particularly want to get bogged down in that level of detail, unless someone wants to carry the discussion that way. I think the discussion of context is much more powerful and obvious.)

So, sure, Luke could have been trying to convey idea B. But all the evidence, from both the context of the passage and the wording of the text, would support option A. At least, that is how it looks to me.

[Sean]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Gernatch]

I just thought of this the other day and haven't had an opportunity to share it with you guys yet. I haven't posted much, but I have been reading what you all have been saying.

Lately I have been paying close attention to the groups of people who were present during the time Luke made this statement. What is clear to me is that there are two different groups of people present all throughout this section of Acts. There are Jews, and there are Gentiles. From the moment Paul stands up in verse 16, he makes this clear by saying "Men of Israel and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me!" You can note that these Gentiles who worship God are also identified as devout converts to Judaism in verse 43 (added for mental clarity).

So, we have Jews and Gentiles clearly present.

There may have also been two different types of Jews within this distinction though. We know there were some who rejected Paul's message and considered themselves unworthy of eternal life. On the other hand, there were those who seem to have had a completely different disposition! Citing verse 43 again we see that "...many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God." Here, we have Jews and Gentiles both urging Paul and Barnabas to continue in the grace of God. Now, the weakest part of this argument is the possibility that these Jews could have only been pretending to be friendly until verse 45 when they became jealous.

Lets say that these Jews were part of the true believing remnant. If there were Jews who didn't consider themselves unworthy of eternal life, how would that change our view of Acts 13:48? See below.

When the gentiles heard this, they were glad an honored the word of the lord,
This seems to suggest ALL the Gentiles, and it's strange to honor the word of the Lord and not believe, so it's (I think) reasonable that all of these Gentiles believed.

and all who were appointed to eternal life believed.
In addition to the Gentiles, there were others who were saved. For example, the Jews cited in verse 43 may have been saved. Perhaps there were more than just gentiles who believed. Why then would "those appointed" need to be a certain number within the Gentiles?

I also still don't see how this can't mean "disposed" to eternal life. Certainly God fearing Jews and Greeks are all disposed to eternal life, aren't they? It's only the ones who don't fear God or who aren't part of the remnant of Israel who don't believe due to their suppressing of the truth. They were never truly God fearing to begin with! By saying that they didn't consider themselves worthy of eternal life, Paul could have been revealing their true disposition, couldn't he have been?

Hope this make sense. I think this is similar to what some of you have been getting at.

Sincerely,
Chris

[Tychicus]

Lately I have been paying close attention to the groups of people who were present during the time Luke made this statement. What is clear to me is that there are two different groups of people present all throughout this section of Acts. . . . There may have also been two different types of Jews within this distinction though. We know there were some who rejected Paul's message and considered themselves unworthy of eternal life. On the other hand, there were those who seem to have had a completely different disposition! . . .

These are quite good observations, these and everything else you said.

When the gentiles heard this, they were glad an honored the word of the lord,
This seems to suggest ALL the Gentiles, and it's strange to honor the word of the Lord and not believe, so it's (I think) reasonable that all of these Gentiles believed.

This also makes perfect sense, although I don't think Luke necessarily meant that every Gentile who lived in the city was there.

and all who were appointed to eternal life believed.
In addition to the Gentiles, there were others who were saved. For example, the Jews cited in verse 43 may have been saved. Perhaps there were more than just gentiles who believed. Why then would "those appointed" need to be a certain number within the Gentiles?

Yes, there were some Jews who believed. I agree that "those appointed" are not restricted to the Gentiles.

I also still don't see how this can't mean "disposed" to eternal life. Certainly God fearing Jews and Greeks are all disposed to eternal life, aren't they? It's only the ones who don't fear God or who aren't part of the remnant of Israel who don't believe due to their suppressing of the truth. They were never truly God fearing to begin with! By saying that they didn't consider themselves worthy of eternal life, Paul could have been revealing their true disposition, couldn't he have been?

Yes, it certainly could mean that.

However, although your logic is impeccable, a Calvinist could make an equally good argument that those words in 48b support their point of view as well. They would also say, as James White has said, that the Greek wording favors their interpretation. And I think that is true, based on looking at comparable Greek structures. So, it is basically a tie, with the Calvinist holding the slight advantage; and if there is nothing else to go on they win.

The problem I have with either of these views is that there is nothing in the context that refers to the idea of God appointing individuals, nor of individuals disposing themselves. I can't think of any reason Luke would want to make such a comment at this point in the text, nor why his readers would interpret 48b in that manner.

That is why I think the "appointing groups" interpretation (Gentiles as well as Jews) is to be preferred, since it fits perfectly well in the context.

But if you are thoroughly convinced that the appointing (or disposing) is refering to individual people, then I think your interpretation above is about as good can be. It is actually very good.

[Gernatch]

Tychicus wrote:
This also makes perfect sense, although I don't think Luke necessarily meant that every Gentile who lived in the city was there.

I may have not spoken clearly on this point. I don't believe that "ALL" of the gentiles were present in the city. When I said "ALL", I was referring to the gentiles who rejoiced. So, ALL who were present, rejoiced. My argument from there was that it's possible that ALL of these rejoicing gentiles to have believed. It sounds like they did believe; they rejoiced. But as many as were appointed in addition to the gentiles, believed. If this is talking about a number within the Gentiles, perhaps Luke worded it like this because he didn't know who truly believed. In order that Luke wouldn't be wrong in his statement, he said "All who were appointed to eternal life believed". By saying this, Luke's statement stands strong, even if not a single person believed.

Tychicus wrote:
The problem I have with either of these views is that there is nothing in the context that refers to the idea of God appointing individuals, nor of individuals disposing themselves. I can't think of any reason Luke would want to make such a comment at this point in the text, nor why his readers would interpret 48b in that manner.

You are absolutely right. There is nothing in the context here that conveys the idea that individuals disposed themselves. This was White's argument, and I believe this is where Dave Hunt went wrong. It can't be interpreted "disposed themselves" because there isn't a reflexive pronoun as you would find in similar passages. Therefore you are limited to either "appointed" or "disposed". But lets keep a distinction in mind between "disposed" and "disposed themselves". The later is not possible in this verse. The reason it could mean "disposed" is because it doesn't say who did the appointing. Calvinists assume God is the one who did the appointing, which could be right. But, since it doesn't say who did the appointing, what we know is that something happened to the individuals who ended up believing which put them in position for eternal life. How does any believer get disposed to eternal life? Everyone would agree that God works in their lives. Lets say that it means disposed, but that God does the work in a person which causes them to become disposed to eternal life. Though God does the work, this is still different than appointment before the foundations of the world. If the text read "as many as were disposed", what we can deduce from it is the idea that God may have been working on the hearts of all men, and that not all were disposed to eternal life. If we take this to mean "appointed" (before the world began), then it can only mean that God didn't even have any salvific intention on those who weren't appointed, and the ones who did believe, couldn't have chose otherwise.

The problem I have with this referring to groups is I don't see what other groups there were besides Jew and Gentile. I'm not clear on the "groups" interpretation.

Any thoughts?

By Grace,
Chris

[DanielGracely]

Gr. tasso

[DanielGracely]

Hello Gernatch, Sean, et al,

All major English translations of the Bible have always (so far as I can tell) assumed that “ordained” in Acts 13:48 is a perfect passive participle (i.e., “were ordained”). This is not only because of its spelling in Greek, but also, I think, because it could be used opportunistically by Calvinists to argue this verse as a tour de force for divine irresistibility (of man in the soteriological process). Yet in Greek, participles in the middle voice are spelled the same way as perfect passive participles. Just a reminder here—Middle Voice in Greek indicates self-reflexive action, i.e. the object receiving the action is also the subject causing it. “I put the baseball cap on myself,” would be an example of self-reflexive action, as opposed, e.g., to “He put the baseball cap on me.” Consequently, translators make judgment calls about how to translate these participles. Naturally, then, if a Calvinist (or Calvinist-leaning) translator is given the option whether or not to render a passage so that man can appear to be the passive object of a God exercising divine irresistibility, it is likely the course the Calvinist will take. In fact, any rendering that would suggest human choice, even if the Calvinist translator briefly entertained the idea as a grammatical possibility, would almost certainly be immediately dismissed.

But I personally feel the Middle Voice is in view here in Acts 13:48, though admittedly no major English translation renders it this way, i.e., “were appointing themselves.” Further, my own study has convinced me that newer translations have significantly rubber-stamped older, well-regarded ones, in favor of Calvinism in certain key passages. I’m not saying every time; but often. Often enough to persuade many readers' minds toward Calvinism. (The three non-synonymous and very different Hebrew verbs all Englished under the single idea of “to harden” in the Pharaohic narrative is perhaps the clearest example I can think of.)

As for the Gr. verb tasso, we see it used a few chapters later, when we are told that certain Judaizers who claimed circumcision was necessary to be saved, argued with Paul and Barnabas. The result was the appointing of Paul and Barnabas and certain of the others (i.e. the group opposed to Paul and Barnabas) to present the two respective views to the elders at Jerusalem. Gr. tasso is also used of the centurion of great faith, when he tells Jesus he himself is one appointed, having authority to direct others, etc. My point in all this is that the idea of irresistibility is not an inherent part of the meaning of Gr. tasso. To broaden this a little, I don’t believe divine irresistibility is an inherent part of the meaning of any Greek verb when man’s ideas, beliefs, knowledge, etc. are in view. Otherwise the immaterial part of “man” simply becomes the thought-extension of God. Rather, I would say that Choice equals sentience (consciousness), i.e., individuation of being. Indeed, the idea that God can irresistibly give even one idea to another Person, in the sense that the idea irresistibly becomes at any time OF the man’s mind, is IMO to deny individual consciousness altogether. In such a case the word symbols “God” and “man” in contexts about the will simply become synonyms of each other.

Despite the danger of this blurring hermeneutic, many Christian scholars still read divine irresistibility into every verb when God is the subject in contexts about human will. But as already observed, when Gr. tasso is used in a context at the level of human to human relation, no one seems to advocate that irresistibility has something to do with the word. For obviously Paul and Barnabas didn’t have to acquiesce to the process of their appointment. They could have refused it, even as the centurion might have refused his appointment (regardless of consequence). So again, the whole trick of Calvinism is that it reads irresistibility into the meaning of verbs when God is the grammatical subject in soteriological contexts.</i> Put bluntly, this approach is special pleading. It attempts to define words not as they were understood during the time of the biblical writings in the general culture, but according to Calvinists’ own invented theological agenda. To repeat the point here with an added reference, as Prof. Thomas Edgar states in his article about foreknowledge, verbs do NOT change meaning depending upon the grammatical subject. But the translators have not agreed, and so Gr. tasso has been assumed to be a Perfect Passive Participle in Acts 13:48.

In reality Acts 13:48 becomes a tour de force for self-reflexive human predication. It is like Romans 9:22, in which the Perfect Passive Participle should have been rendered “fitted themselves to destruction,” but instead was rendered by translators as “fitted to destruction,” as though such men were merely the passive recipients of God’s constructs placed upon them irresistibly. To stress the point again, let me ask if anyone knows of an English translation, even in a marginal note, that recognizes the grammatical possibility of rendering the ‘perfect passive participle’ in Romans 9:22 (i.e., fitted) to a middle voice predicate instead? Frankly, the reason translators keep getting away with this agenda-driven sloppiness is because we laymen have been too trusting of them for too long. Personally, I try not to let the standard lexicons intimidate me anymore. For when I see, e.g., Thayer’s claims for “regeneration” and note that examples supporting the Calvinistic definition are all to be found only from Scripture, with no examples from extra-biblical contemporary sources supporting it (which instead support an idea of restoration to its former state), I know an agenda is underfoot, however unconscious of his bias the lexicographer is.

But moving on, one might object by saying, “But you can’t appoint yourself.” Really? Who was David appointing, then, i.e., who was David designating, when he asked himself rhetorically why he shouldn’t hope in God, though he be disquieted in soul? The fact is, we rarely use the verb to choose when talking about ourselves, because standard language just assumes it. None of us say, “Today, I chose to get up, I chose to shower, I chose to dress, I chose to eat, and I chose to go to work.” No, instead we say, “I got up, showered, dressed, ate, and went to work.” But it is this automatic assumption of ego—of Choice (sentient being)—that Calvinists challenge. They are not prepared to say than anyone chooses anything himself ex nihilio and without prior necessity. They think that would rob God of His glory. And so they cling to a theological hermeneutic that blurs the being of God and the being of man to a point where no meaningful distinctions are maintained. For the Calvinist there really is no Middle Voice, no Subjunctive Mood, or anything else that would really challenge God-only predication (except when culpability for sin is discussed).

Now, I said a moment ago that “I choose/chose…” is not bothered about by people using everyday language, since it is assumed. But of course there could be a reason to emphasize Choice in a given passage. And so the reason, I think, that Luke draws our focus upon certain Gentiles’ appointment of themselves to believe, is because he means to contrast their intention with that of the Jews, who are described earlier as having turned away, having judged themselves unworthy.

Finally, as for the question of whether individuals are in view, I cannot think of what else could be meant by Gr. hosos, a quantifying term. “As many as….” As many what? As many individuals (what else?). Certainly not “as many groups.” And certainly not a group like “the many,” a term in Romans with the article present before the word “many”, but not present here.

Anyway, all this to say that perhaps we should consider whether the Middle Voice cuts the Gordian knot in Acts:13:48, which it appears to me it does.

[Tychicus]

Hi DanielGracely,
I read your post with interest, and hope to reply later. For now I'll answer Gernatch's post above. But first I need to deal with one issue in your post.

Finally, as for the question of whether individuals are in view, I cannot think of what else could be meant by Gr. hosos, a quantifying term. “As many as….” As many what? As many individuals (what else?). Certainly not “as many groups.” And certainly not a group like “the many,” a term in Romans with the article present before the word “many”, but not present here.

I can't imagine why hosos cannot refer to groups. It is a general word of measure and is translated many ways in the New Testament. It is often translated "whenever", "whatever", "all that [Jesus did]", and so on. For a partial counterpart to Acts 13:48 you can look at Luke 9:5:

"And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them." (ESV).

The hosoi (translated "wherever" here) is refering to "as-many-as towns" as did not receive them. Of course this doesn't literally mean "the town", but "the people in the town". The idea in Acts 13:48 is the same: just read "nation" instead of "town", and so you have "as many [nations] as God appointed to eternal life believed".

Okay, on to Gernatch's question:

The problem I have with this referring to groups is I don't see what other groups there were besides Jew and Gentile. I'm not clear on the "groups" interpretation.

Actually the word for Gentiles is ethnq, which more literally means "nations". The Jews, though, often divided the world into two parts: "the Jews" (them), and "the Gentiles" (all the other nations). Remember also that "nation" would often refer to an ethnic group (like the Greek word sounds) rather than to a political entity as is more common today.

This section in Acts 13 is a pivotal point in the book. Recall in 1:8 Jesus tells the disciples " . . . you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and the the ends of the earth." And as you read through Acts you see this expansion of the Church, starting with Jerusalem and Judea; then in chap 8 you see Samaria. After that you see a few cases of Gentiles coming to faith; but now in chap 13 you have the first case of a Christian mission to a remote area. And so, reflecting back, you see the pattern: when the gospel was preached to God's chosen people (the Jews), "they believed" (in the sense that the first group of believers were all Jews). Then, when the gospel goes to Samaria (another one of God's appointed nations), "they believed". And now we see the gospel going out to a remote area (the start of "the ends of the earth"), and the gospel is preached to one more of God's appointed nations, look what happens: "they believed"!

And so we see a pattern. As many times as the gospel goes to one of God appointed peoples, "they believe".

Of course, the other strand of thought as seen in 13:44-47 (and as mentioned in other posts) is the controversy about "who is appointed to eternal life: is it Jews only, or is it all nations?" And the book of Acts has a pattern here, too. In chapter 8 you see the gospel going to the Samaitans: and "they believed". Then in chap 10 you have the account of the Gentile Cornelius and all his family and friends: when they heard the gospel, "they believed". And when Peter and his companions questioned whether he really belonged in the church, God said "yes" by pouring out His Spirit. And now finally here in chap 13 amidst a controversy with the Jews, Paul and Barnabas quote Isaiah 49 ("light to the Gentiles"). As as the Gentiles heard that "they believed".

Again, a similar pattern. It is the same story, just as God predicted in his Word, from Genesis up through Isaiah, and on. And so all this is in Luke's mind as he comes to verse 48b; it is obviously in his mind since he is writing the story. And thus the 7 controversial Greek words in 48b.

Luke is not trying to teach anything new here. He is not trying to make a precise statement of theology, or to construct a half-sentence that will be used as a "proof text" in years to come. He is just making a simple reflection as to where the story has gotten thus far, perhaps an expression of joy: God's plan to spread the gospel to all nations is on the move, as we see right before us. And, of course, there is more to come, as we can see as we read through the rest of the book of Acts.