Revisiting Acts 13:48

[DanielGracely]

Hi Tychicus,

I regret if I left the impression that I didn’t think Gr. hosos could ever refer to anything but individuals, such as towns. I would have hoped that my overall remarks in my previous comment would have been understood to refer to just the passage in question, namely, the immediate context of Acts 13:48.

But moving on, in one sense I can appreciate the attempt to bring harmony to the Scriptures by examining overarching themes that shape the Bible. And I don’t think anyone here would deny that the spread of the gospel mentioned in Acts 1:8—first to the Judeans, then to the Samarians, and finally to the rest of the world—is the general theme of the Book of Acts. However, I disagree with your view that groups, not individuals, is what Gr. hosos refers to in Acts 13:48, since (in my view) your hermeneutic places too much importance on the near, and not enough importance on the immediate, context. It is Gentiles whom Paul said he was now turning, Gentiles who were glad, Gentiles who rejoiced, Gentiles to whom the light of God's word would shine pertaining to the ends of the earth. But immediately following we come to "as many as," and you all but wish us to suppose that the referent cannot be Gentiles, but is instead a number of groups (including Jews and Samaritans)!

It has been said that in Bible interpretation there are three contexts: the immediate, the near, and the far. The immediate ought be considered foremost in any discussion about referents, simply because there is more detail there than might be secondarily considered by the near context, or tertiarily considered by the far context. And so (again) I disagree with your conclusion about "groups”, because to claim (as you do), that Luke’s focus is on the overall theme of spreading evangelism, and not on the individuals believing, is an appeal to identify the referent by the near context instead of the immediate context.

Furthermore, I observe a parallelism in vs. 46 to 48 that indicates each of the two group’s own predicating response to the word of God. In v. 46 Paul tells the Jews that “seeing ye put [the word of God] from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” Then, after Paul justifies his turning to the Gentiles by stating that the word of God would be a light unto the ends of the earth, we are told in v. 48 that the Gentiles were glad and rejoiced and as many as appointed themselves to eternal life believed. Thus the contrast between the two groups: the Jews who were angry and put the word of God from them and judged themselves unworthy of it, versus the Gentiles who were glad to be included in the message of light, rejoiced, and as many as were appointing themselves unto eternal life, believed.

BTW, you say that you can see it both ways, and that “Luke could be talking about a “group of Gentiles who believed.”” But this way of expressing the last phrase in v. 48 fails to quantify the “as many as”. For it is grammatically incorrect to say, “as many group (singular) of Gentiles who believed,” but rather “as many groups” or “as many [Gentiles]”, to be grammatically faithful to the quantifying indication of Gr. hosos. Also, you claim that the word “but” or some similar word would need to be in the text, since on the one hand ALL the Gentiles rejoiced “but” only as many as…etc. But this fails to take into account that the Gentiles who besought the previous Sabbath to again hear Paul expressed interest in his remarks without necessarily believing at that time. Certainly there have been people who prior to being saved first expressed an interest in hearing more about the gospel without yet being sufficiently persuaded of it. So it does seem quite possible that all the Gentiles could have rejoiced while only some believed. But EVEN IF one insisted (as you do) on a word of apposition between the two clauses, note that Gr. kai is present, which sometimes is, in fact, translated “yet,” which in this case would actually be a more correct conjunction to express the matter rather than the appearance of “but,” since the contrast between the sub-group who believed to that of ALL Gentiles who rejoiced is a lesser contrast than if the remainder of Gentiles were not glad nor rejoicing.

Despite my disagreement with your view, it did me pause in one sense. I wondered why you lean toward this idea that the referent of Gr. hosos was groups rather than individuals. After all, even from a Calvinistic perspective one might just as well understand Gr. hosos to mean individuals, not groups per se. And then it came to me. I think (assuming you are Calvinist) that, consciously or not, you seek to read groups into this passage out of the same urgency that leads you to read ‘all types of men’ into biblical passages that, e.g., really speak of God desiring all men, i.e., individuals, to be saved. Thus the Calvinist mien: if it can be shown that Gr. hosos means groups in Acts 13:48, then it becomes that much easier to make the argument for limited atonement in other passages.

[Tychicus]

Hi DanielGracely,

I think (assuming you are Calvinist) . . .

Interesting perception . . .

It has been said that in Bible interpretation there are three contexts: the immediate, the near, and the far. The immediate ought be considered foremost in any discussion about referents

Very good point here.

But moving on, in one sense I can appreciate the attempt to bring harmony to the Scriptures by examining overarching themes that shape the Bible. And I don’t think anyone here would deny that the spread of the gospel mentioned in Acts 1:8—first to the Judeans, then to the Samarians, and finally to the rest of the world—is the general theme of the Book of Acts. However, I disagree with your view that groups, not individuals, is what Gr. hosos refers to in Acts 13:48, since (in my view) your hermeneutic places too much importance on the near, and not enough importance on the immediate, context. It is Gentiles whom Paul said he was now turning, Gentiles who were glad, Gentiles who rejoiced, Gentiles to whom the light of God's word would shine pertaining to the ends of the earth. But immediately following we come to "as many as," and you all but wish us to suppose that the referent cannot be Gentiles, but is instead a number of groups (including Jews and Samaritans)!

Yes, I agree that the immediate context (Acts 13:13-48, and esp 44:47) is most important. And, yes, the scripture does refer to "the Gentiles"; but here in particular it is refering to the "Gentiles of Pisidian Antioch", or perhaps the "Galatian Gentiles". And so, what is happening in the immediate context is that "one more nation (ethnic group) among the Gentiles" is receiving the gospel. Thus the term "as-many-as": the spread of the gospel is spreading out, starting with Jews, then the Samaritans, and then the various ethnic groups as the apostles begin to travel out to the "ends of the earth"; and each time the message hits a new group, "they believe!".

Also in the immediate context is the controversy of "God appoints Jews only" verses "God appoints all nations" (if not explicitly stated, this is clear from the context, the rest of the book of Acts, and Galatians). And Acts 13:48b (interpreted as "as many nations as God has appointed") would fit right into that context. The traditional interpretation of "individuals" (whether Calvinist or Arminian) would have no connection there.

Furthermore, I observe a parallelism in vs. 46 to 48 that indicates each of the two group’s own predicating response to the word of God. In v. 46 Paul tells the Jews that “seeing ye put [the word of God] from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” Then, after Paul justifies his turning to the Gentiles by stating that the word of God would be a light unto the ends of the earth, we are told in v. 48 that the Gentiles were glad and rejoiced and as many as appointed themselves to eternal life believed. Thus the contrast between the two groups: the Jews who were angry and put the word of God from them and judged themselves unworthy of it, versus the Gentiles who were glad to be included in the message of light, rejoiced, and as many as were appointing themselves unto eternal life, believed.

This is a good observation, and I suspect there is some parallelism going on.

However, as you acknowledged earlier, no major Bible translations use the reflexive (appointing themselves) in this passage. I suspect there is some reason for this, beside bias (in Koine, if you want to convey reflexive you normally will use the reflexive pronoun, not the middle voice). Not to say it is utterly impossible that Luke meant this, but it would be quite a stretch.

On the other hand, I will note that the interpretation of "God appointing nations" does not require a different translation; the normal translations are just fine. The only issue is how you interpret the passage.

[DanielGracely]

Hi Tychicus,

First, by way of illustration regarding immediate versus near context, were I a New York Yankees fan, I might say the following (if it happened): “Last night the Yankees played at home against the Phillies, and they were tied 2-2 going into the 9th. The Phils’ Victorino singled, and Polanco advanced him with a sacrifice bunt. But Utley was out on a line drive to 3rd, and Howard struck out on a Petit curve ball to end the top of the inning. In the bottom of the 9th A-Rod hit a lead-off homerun to end the game. So the Yankees won 3-2, and that’s good. Tomorrow the teams play their final game of this particular 3-game series.

Now, Tychicus, note the phrase “and that’s good” in the next to the last sentence. I think if I were speaking to you, the natural referent of “that” in the word “that’s” would be understood by you to mean the immediate context of this particular game’s result. It would not be inferred to mean the overall A.L. Standings, the Yankee’s playoff hopes, etc., unless perhaps this game ended the 162 game series in which this win allowed the Yankees to win the division, enter the playoffs, etc. But then surely some substantial and prolonged reference to the importance of this game would be mentioned in what I said to you in the immediate context.

Now, both of us (presumably) know enough about baseball to understand that individual wins are also considered good in terms of winning the overall division, entering the playoffs with a chance to get to the World Series, etc. But despite these overarching themes that remain in the background throughout most of the season, any referent, such as “that,” as given above in my illustration would hardly be taken to refer to the overarching theme, but rather to the immediate context. That is, it was good the Yankees won the game. It could hardly be taken otherwise because of the detailed mention of specific players and their acts during this particular ball game, as well as the following statement about the 3-game series that keeps the focus on the immediate setting (even as in Acts 13:49ff, where the narrative remains focused on the events at Antioch). All this to say that I find the Gentiles to be the natural referent in Acts 13:48 because of the factors in the immediate context.

Second, I think I understand what you mean when you say that in Koine Greek the reflexive pronoun is normally used. But I personally think that the ABSENCE here of the reflexive pronoun in Acts 13:48 is because its presence might have implied that the “as many as” could have appointed men other than themselves to believe. In my view that is not possible, nor is it possible for God to appoint belief. Technically, and I’m going outside the pale of Acts 13 here just to make a general statement about my view, I would allow this much: that God appoints that salvation pertains to men. But I don’t believe that God (Persons of the Godhead) can appoint any idea, belief, etc, to be OF man, anymore than any one of us can appoint belief or idea to be OF another. We each can only appoint idea, belief, and disbelief to ourself. So I think the straightforward reading of Acts 13:48 would mean that those among the Gentiles (the “as many as”) who were anticipating hearing Paul speak on the Sabbath and were appointing themselves unto eternal life, believed, given that the Gentiles are repeatedly referred to in verses leading up to v.48.

Now, if you still feel differently about this particular matter of immediate vs. near context, I think I have said enough of my own view not to repeat it further. And I suspect you do not find my above points persuasive, or persuasive enough, to change your view. But I do think there is something positive you may take away here because of what I am about to say. For I feel especially compelled to respond to this statement of yours:

“However, as you acknowledged earlier, no major Bible translations use the reflexive (appointing themselves) in this passage. I suspect there is some reason for this…”

Here is what I particularly want to say to you, Tychicus: I want to encourage you to rely less on the translations than you currently do, and to examine more the underlying lexical use of words. I have in mind the example I mentioned in an earlier comment to show how wrong-headed ALL the standard translations can be. It happens in the Pharaohic narrative, where three different Hebrew words which are non-synonymous have been reduced in English translations to mean “to harden.” But again, it should be observed that these words are NOT synonymous. The most frequent Hebrew word in the Pharaohic passage that has been Englished to some form of “to harden” actually means “to seize, and so by implication, “to be strong,” and demonstrates one of these two uses in every one of its 275 or so appearances outside the Pharaohic narrative. If I recall right, it is used some five times when Joshua is told to be strong, of Samson when he prays to be strengthened one last time in order to avenge his eyes, of Absalom whose head was “caught (seized) in the oak,” of the man who “lay hold” (seized) his concubine and cut her in 12 pieces, etc. These appearances can be looked up in BlueLetterBible if you’re interested. So, I’m saying that if in 275+ appearances the Hebrew word chazaq does NOT mean to harden, than surely it does not mean “to harden” inside the Pharaohic narrative. Yet it was nevertheless made to appear so by the translators. Consequently, “to harden” finds its way into the standard lexicons as one of chazaq’s meanings. IMO assumed meanings leads to exegesis, interpretation, and lexical claims for particular words. Currently, however, the matter as handled by translators is hardly so objective a process, as readers seem to think.

The second most frequently used Hebrew word Englished as some form of “to harden” in the Pharaohic narrative actually means “to honor.” It comes from a word for the liver, which was held to be the heaviest organ in the body, thus, to give weight. It is used, e.g., in the commandment to honor one’s mother and father. The last of the three Hebrew words (appearing least frequently in the Pharaohic narrative) means “to indurate, to render stubborn. ” The Greek equivalent (skleruno) is used by Paul in Romans 9 as a kind of synopsis of what happened to Pharaoh because of his own stubbornness. (Elsewhere I have written of this verb “to harden”, and how God sometimes speaks of Himself as having been the causative agent in circumstances where the narrative plainly shows He is not (e.g., Job 1—2). But my point in all this is to say, no matter what position one takes—either Calvinism, or non-Calvinism—translators have an obligation to render the meaning of words according to their lexical use, and not according to their bias. If the Scripture says, “The Lord seized Pharaoh’s heart,” or “The Lord strengthened Pharaoh’s heart,” then translate it that way. Don’t translate it to read, “The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart,” because that’s not what the Scripture is saying.

But what, e.g., have NASB translators done with these three Hebrew verbs all of which are distinct in their etymological roots and lexical histories? Answer: simply rubber-stamped the KJV. After a few years I actually discovered why apparently the KJV Englished all three Hebrew words as one and the same word (not even bothering to use English synonyms!). It was apparently because of the influence of the Septuagint. That’s right—the three Hebrew words were Greeked down to merely one word in the Septuagint. Tychicus, and all who read this, at some point we must stop embracing the ‘credentialism’ of translators and their sacrosanct traditional renderings. There is no reason to be intimidated. We must call translators to task for what is their dishonesty (at worst) or ignorance (at best).

Do I think my argument in the preceding three paragraphs will persuade the dedicated Calvinist to my view that something else is in view in the Pharaohic narrative besides God’s irresistible hardening of Pharaoh’s heart? No, not at all. Dedicated Calvinists will continue to read their bias into “strengthened” and “honoured” according to their standard approach of changing verbs to mean whatever they need them to mean when God is the grammatical subject, in order to claim support for whatever theological point of theirs is at stake. But my point is this: the Calvinist view of the ‘hardening’ of Pharaoh’s heart would not have “trucked” so well with English readers over four centuries, to persuade them of the irresistibility of God’s “hardening,” had translators rendered the words as they should have, and not as they did.

Therefore to me the Calvinist hermeneutic is not any different in principle than that appealed to today by those Mormons who, despite knowing that Joseph Smith’s The Pearl of Great Price was ‘translated’ from Egyptian papyri Smith bought before the Rosetta Stone was discovered, which of course disproved Smith once it was discovered, nevertheless believe Smith. We ought to ask, Why would any Mormon continue to believe in Smith’s ‘translation’ after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone? Because, as the Mormon argument seems to go, the truth of God is revealed in written symbols that transcend human inference and understanding. It is not bound to the foolishness of human language and its normal meanings and the lexical control group that arises from it. So never mind (in effect the Mormon tells us) all the Egyptian hieroglyphics in all Egyptian writings, finally rendered into language the rest of the world understands because of the tri-translational (including classical Greek) lingual Rosetta Stone. No, such a lexical control group that arises from these writings would obviously threaten Smith’s Pearl of Great Price, therefore the lexical control group, not the renegade interpretation, is asked to step aside. Again, ‘normal’ language is considered the product of an unenlightened humanity, and so it cannot possibly check the transcendence of God’s language which is not bound by human convention. For the Mormon, then, there is no such thing as lexical control groups when the truth of God speaks. All that is needed, as a young Mormon missionary once told me, is “a burning in the bosom” that confirms in the hearer that Smith’s vision is true.

And so, Tychicus, I personally feel Calvinists follow the same hermeneutical approach as Smith, abstracting word symbols until the “truth of God” is revealed in mystery, and thus not accountable to what is viewed as the conventions of fallen men and fallen language. In fairness I should say that not every Calvinist is willing to confess this matter as strongly, as Westminster Prof. John Frame makes clear in his review and dissent from Westminster (West Coast) faculty member, Clark, who actually says that there is something of falsity in every human expression about God. One wonders, then, or at least I wonder why the human, Clark, would be writing a book, if every statement in it will have something of falsity in it? Or is Clark unwittingly implying he is something Else? And I wonder, too, what becomes of the human confession of the Lord Jesus, said to be necessary for salvation? (Romans 10:9) “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth…” says Paul. But if the human uses his mouth to confess the Lord as his Saviour and Other, and if there is something of falsity in every human expression, then of what avail is his confession?

I guess all I can say to such a Mormon or dedicatedly Calvinist approach, is that it seems impossible to me for a man to take such a burning—such a fire—into his bosom, and not be burned.

[Gernatch]

*Is all ears*

[Tychicus]

were I a New York Yankees fan . . .

Hey, that's quite a lot to chew on, from the Yankees to the Calvinists to the Mormons to the strength of Pharaoh's heart.

But re the translation of Acts 13:48, why do you think it is so biased? It looks quite neutral to me (most common translations): "all who (or as-many-as) were appointed for eternal life believed." I would think a biased Calvinist translation would read something like:

"all individual persons whom God appointed before the foundation of the world believed".

Notice that the translations do not say who did the appointing (whether God or someone else), or who was appointed (whether individuals, households, or nations, etc.), when they were appointed, or how (on what basis) they were appointed. This is all left open to interpretation, and you can argue for any one of those if you think there is sufficient contextual support.

[DanielGracely]

Hi Tychicus,
In your last comment in your last sentence you mention “contextual support.” A main difference in our views is what “context” is given primary consideration. In my view it is the immediate, not near (nor far) context.

IMO Calvinists (e.g., James White) assume that the theme of God’s absolute sovereignty often (always?) runs just beneath the surface of the skin in biblical writers’ minds, so that it should be natural for someone like Luke to use a periphrastic (round about way of speaking) phrase to make a point about God appointing men to eternal life. And I suppose that would be a natural conclusion if that were your guiding assumption. But I just don’t believe the Calvinist hermaneutic is correct, because I don’t think it’s faithful to the proper lexical use of words, or explains individual consciousness separate from God. IMO only Choice makes possible an individuated consciousness separate from God. In fact, I can not even think of what else could. BTW I hasten to say that Calvinists do not define “Choice” the same way I do. When R.C. Sproul says—by way of his explaining how man is culpable for sin, while yet under the sovereign decree of God who determines all things which come to pass—that Augustine got at the problem by saying that though man was free, he had no liberty, to me this is a way of stating that man had a “choice” of one thing, which, in any normal sense of the word, is not a choice at all. Furthermore, Sproul uses synonyms ("freedom" and "liberty") but denies their synonymity in order to make his argument. If one is determined to accept that kind of definition for things, truly, I have no reasoning that will avail with him.

As for the reason I have been pointing out, e.g., the translational bias in the Pharaohic narrative, it is to show an example of the kind of Calvinist manipulation of certain biblical texts, witting or not. To show how subtle Calvinist arguments can be, I will leave you with one more example. Recently, I challenged a Calvinist to admit to the fact that R.C. Sproul misleads his readers (in his book, Chosen by God) when discussing John 6:44. For Sproul comments on the word “can” in the phrase, “No man can come to the Son…” by saying:

“What teacher has not corrected the student on the difference between “can” and “may”?

Thus Sproul implies that Gr. dunamai behaves as “can” does in FORMAL, not INFORMAL, English. For in INFORMAL English “can,” may mean “may” or “wills to.” And, in fact, the Bible shows that “may” IS sometimes the proper rendering of Gr. dunamai, such as when the Athenians asked Paul whether they might (Gr. dunamai) know of his doctrine. Obviously, the Athenians were not asking Paul if they were “able to” know, i.e., had the mental capacity to understand an argument! They were asking, “May we know…” So my point is this: Sproul implies that “may” is not part of the lexical possibilities of Gr. dunamai, and therefore it cannot be rendered “may” in John 6:44. And so I actually asked the Calvinist with whom I was corresponding if he would at least admit that Sproul, intentionally or not, misled his readers. But despite my pressing the point a bit, he never did admit it. Yet he himself even realized that Gr. dunamai did not have the restricted meaning which “can” has in FORMAL English. Well, I think it’s a shame when it appears men like Sproul are held in such high regard that their followers can’t bear to admit it when one of their heroes gets something wrong. I mean, I wasn't asking this Calvinist to abandon his Calvinism simply on this one point alone, but merely trying to see how much truthfulness he would allow into the discussion. Or perhaps this Calvinist correspondent simply regarded my point as too insignificant to reply to. But IMO it IS significant to anyone pursuing the truth in such matters (of lexical importance). I believe what Sproul’s example shows is the general disdain Calvinists have for the historico-grammatical approach. And so, when prominent Calvinists like Sproul, or James White (who also, in his Alpha and Omega online commentary note on Jn. 6:44 simply gives “to be able to” as the meaning for Gr. dunamai) mislead their readers through false implication, it’s a serious thing.

IMO Calvinism is the most subtle form of false ideology in the Evangelical Church. For while most Evangelicals would (presumably) see through the hoax of Joseph Smith’s bogus translation of Egyptian papyri because of the Rosetta Stone, an increasing amount of Evangelicals are today being fooled through the very subtle, clever arguments of Calvinists. Meanwhile, the Church in general remains woefully ignorant of Calvinist bias in key translations.

Now, with these remarks I hope to be winding down my comments on this issue, since I realize we probably still disagree.

[Sean]

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'

I have started to re-think this issue again and have to agree, at least at this point, with this line of reasoning. It really makes a lot of sense.

It also seems that Calvinist typically take this same approach with other texts like John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself. A Calvinist would say "all men" refers to all kinds of men, namely Gentiles & Jews. Not each and every person on earth.

A similar argument is made by them about 1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Calvinist say this means all kinds of men. Not each and every man on the earth.

The context of John 12 does indeed seem to be pointing to the fact of Jesus drawing all kinds of men, since Gentiles were just introduced in verse 20.

So it seems very reasonable to me to view Acts 13:48b in a similar way. It is a summary statement about the fact that God has indeed appointed Gentiles to believe as well as Jews. In other words, it wasn't the Jews who were appointed, or even the Gentiles alone (in this case). All, namely, all kinds of people (Jews & Gentiles) have been appointed to eternal life.

[Gernatch]

Hey guys. I'm back!

Since I am currently in school and remodeling a house, I don't have a lot of time. I did want to throw this reference out to you guys. I think it is possibly the best interpretation of Acts 13:48 that I have ever heard. Let me know what you guys think. I discovered it at Google Books after doing some research on the credibility of various commentaries. Go to Google Books and search for "Quest for Truth: Answering Life's Inescapable Questions."

To put it short, the author attempts to make a connection between "those appointed," and the proselytes which are spoken of prior to Acts 13:48. I think he gives a very convincing case. Let me know if you agree.

Sincerely,
Chris

[Gernatch]

Sorry, forgot to mention. Acts:13:48 starts on page 388 of that book.

[Tychicus]

It also seems that Calvinist typically take this same approach with other texts like John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself. A Calvinist would say "all men" refers to all kinds of men, namely Gentiles & Jews. Not each and every person on earth.

A similar argument is made by them about 1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Calvinist say this means all kinds of men. Not each and every man on the earth.

The context of John 12 does indeed seem to be pointing to the fact of Jesus drawing all kinds of men, since Gentiles were just introduced in verse 20.

Great observation!

Do you think the "Calvinist" interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4 is also correct? I can see the reference to Paul's ministry to the Gentiles in v 7 below, and I can also see possible support for that view in v 5-6.