Revisiting Acts 13:48

[jeremiah]

could it be that maybe we've payed so much attention to detail, missing the obvious? starting back in v.42, they asked paul and barnabas to come back on the next sabbath. by v.48 an entire week has passed. seven days of discussion and who knows how many conversations. then nearly the whole city gathered to hear the word of the lord...and as many as were appointed for eternal life believed. if i had heard heated, passionate, unsure discussion about such a topic for even a few days, i would be very interested to go and hear the verdict.

i know this is not definitive, but it seems to me the correct direction to understanding the flow of the text.

my point is, i don't think a meticulous magnification of this phrase's grammar gives us the answer, but of the paragraphs prior.
-------------------------------------^ pun intended
grace and peace

[alastairblake]

jeremiah,

nice observation.

Alastair

[rplende]

The destruction of this apparent stronghold of Calvinism (ie Acts 13:48) may be far simpler than we have all thought. Either that or i am horribly mistaken. My proposal is something i have never read in a commentary or heard anyone previously argue but appears to be highly plausible from what i understand. And this is:

People were appointed to eternal life before Jesus' Incarnation. All the OT saints for example. They never heard the gospel as Peter and Paul were preaching it and indeed as Jesus Himself preached it. And this is the Crux of the issue. That these were God fearing people, accepted by God according to the revelation they had received until this time. Now for the "FIRST TIME" they were hearing the gospel and they were "BELIEVING THE GOSPEL ABOUT JESUS."

Or are we going to say that nobody in OT times or between Jesus death and hearing the gospel, that if they had not heard the gospel were not saved?

What fortifies my premise is Acts 19:1ff, where Paul arrives in Ephesus and finds DISCIPLES. Disciples of who? It appears to be disciples of John the Baptist because they had only heard of John's baptism. (and received it) When Paul Preached Jesus to them, telling them of their need to BELIEVE IN HIM, which they subsequently did, they were filled with the Holy Spirit etc. They were already following God according to the limited revelation they had received (ie John the Baptist's teaching) and so for all intents and purposes were accepted by Him and appointed to eternal life just as Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David etc etc, whilst not having received the NT gospel as Jesus preached it, were nonetheless appointed to eternal life!

Also we have the case just 3 chapters back from Acts13:48 with Cornelius. In Ch 10v2 Cornelius is described as a DEVOUT man, who FEARED GOD WITH ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD, and gave alms generously to the people, AND PRAYED TO GOD ALWAYS (NKJV by the way) v4 says his Prayers and Alms have come up for a memorial before God and God would tell him(Yes this is God speaking to Cornelius) what he should do. So Cornelius eventually meets with Peter and v31 Peter affirms Cornelius' faith and belief in God(so hence he would have already been appointed to eternal life as were the OT saints and disciples of John the Baptist) and this is verified by v35 where Peter states, "WHOEVER FEARS HIM AND WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS IS ACCEPTED BY HIM" Get that "ACCEPTED BY HIM" If you are ACCEPTED by God, you are no doubt appointed by Him to eternal life! Peter goes on to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to them and they believe it. ALTHOUGH THEY ALREADY KNEW GOD AND WERE ACCEPTED BY HIM, they were now HEARING THE GOSPEL FOR THE FIRST TIME AND WERE BELIEVING.

So my proposition is that Acts 13:48 presents a similar scenario wherein these people had believed God according to the revelation they had received and now were HEARING and BELIEVING THE GOSPEL for the FIRST TIME.

Were any disciples of John the Baptist who died between believing John's message and baptism, and Jesus preaching the message of Salvation, have eternal life? Would they have been appointed by God? If there were any who died in the interim i think they would have been appointed to eternal life?

Without going on too much more i would like to make mention of the description of Zacharias the priest and his wife Elizabeth in LUKE 1:5-6. They are described as "AND THEY WERE BOTH RIGHTEOUS BEFORE GOD, WALKING IN ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD BLAMELESS." Does anyone think they would not be appointed by God to eternal life?

So in conclusion: What i am saying is that while these people that Paul encountered in Acts 13:48 had believed and followed God according to the revelation and witness they received until this time and hence were also accepted by God according to the faith they had, they were now FOR THE FIRST TIME, HEARING and BELIEVING the GOSPEL ABOUT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

So these people had an ACTIVE FAITH IN GOD before they heard the message of JESUS CHRIST and because of that faith were appointed by God to eternal life, and now were finally hearing the NT message of Salvation through Christ and they "BELIEVED IT"

[steve]

Hi rplende,

Thanks for sharing. This is a good insight, I think.

[rplende]

Thanks Steve. It probably needs some refinement. I was just reading Acts13v16 and Paul refers to his listeners as "Men of Israel and (get this) YOU WHO FEAR GOD" ie There were the Jews plus Gentiles who feared God. The same Gentiles who were appointed in v48. Why because they already had a faith in God although they had never heard the message of Jesus preached to them until now. He reiterates who his listeners are again in v26 "Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham and THOSE AMONG YOU WHO FEAR GOD..." Then Paul goes on to explain the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I am becoming more convinced as i delve into it that this may undermine the whole Calvinist premise around this verse.
Rob Plenderleith

[Tychicus]

this may undermine the whole Calvinist premise around this verse

That's quite a good observation, that the Calvinist interpretation of this verse depends on the "Calvinist premise". Because if you don't accept the Calvinist premise up front then there is no logical reason to buy the Calvinist interpretation (of individual election). That is, nothing in the context of Acts 13 leads you to that interpretation.

But you are left with a confusing verse. And a Calvinist can still say, "Hey, at least I gave an explanation. Can you come up with anything better??? If not, then you have to accept my interpretation!" In my mind that argument is no different than a Mormon using 1 Cor 15:29 ("baptism for the dead") as a "proof text" for their church's theology on that topic. Sometimes the best answer is, "We don't know what this verse means. The context (or early church writings) don't give us much of a clue."

But perhaps you can find evidence from the context, and I agree that your observations re Acts 13:16 and 13:26 are on the mark. God did appoint people earlier, and now at this time they are believing. And yes, many of them were Gentiles.

I also agree with you that "were appointed" is the correct interpretation of the Greek words. It is not necessary, and quite strained in the Greek, to interpret the words as "appointed themselves", just because you want to avoid the Calvinist interpretation.

For a variation of your proposal you might consider changing "God appointed people earlier" to "God appointed peoples earlier." In other words those "appointed to eternal life" refer to nations, not to individuals.

This interpretation might sound odd to us westerners but would be quite natural to the first century church, and it has compelling support from the ever widening gospel progression in Acts (Jerusalem, all Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth). Right here in 13:47 we see that God has indeed brought salvation to the "ends of the earth". After all, this was the first significant missions trip outside of Palestine. So "those in Jerusalem" believed, "those in all Judea" believed, "those in Samaria" believed, and now when the nations at the ends of the earth heard, "they believed!". This was an exciting place in the gospel story for Luke and it is quite appropriate that he would express himself in this way, strange as it is to our modern ears.

On the other hand, if you take the Calvinist interpretation you have to ask, "Why does Luke want to throw in a verse of Calvinist theology at this point in the book (right after 13:47)?" And I can't think of any sensible answer to that question. That in itself is enough reason to look for another interpretation. It has nothing to do with whether you like Calvinism or not.

[Singalphile]

That was some good and interesting Saturday morning reading. Thanks, all!

Tychicus wrote:
On the other hand, if you take the Calvinist interpretation you have to ask, "Why does Luke want to throw in a verse of Calvinist theology at this point in the book (right after 13:47)?" And I can't think of any sensible answer to that question. That in itself is enough reason to look for another interpretation. It has nothing to do with whether you like Calvinism or not.p

You ended on the thought that I kept having (and was occasionally noted by others). Did Luke (or let us say, the Holy Spirit through Luke) really throw in a bit of new (to the passage) doctrine in this short phrase of summary narrative? Was Luke in the habit of doing this? I don't think so, and especially when the supposed doctrine seems so mysterious and at odds with the message of the gospel/N.T.

I don't read much into his summary. I think it is a somewhat tautological phrase not meant to add new information. As someone mentioned, if Luke - the careful documenter, investigator, and historian - had known exactly how many believed, he would have said so. He probably didn't.

I sometimes think that no one should be allowed to create doctrine on less than, say, 500 words. Or how about this: only two new doctrines per book allowed.

[Tychicus]

I don't read much into his summary. I think it is a somewhat tautological phrase not meant to add new information.

Certainly not meant to add new information; after all, it is a summary. You and I agree on that. But a tautology? (Maybe I don't understand what you mean by that word.)

Luke put the verse there for a reason. It might not be clear to us why, but I suspect it was clear to him and at least to some of his readers. And it just might be something important; the Calvinists seem to think so. Since this forum section is entitled "Calvinism, . . ." I figure most of us here would like to know what it really means.

You call the verse a summary. But a summary of what? Answer that (I think there are two very good answers) and you might get a very good clue.

[Singalphile]

Tychicus,

I think that the theories in this thread are worth mentioning in any discussion of this verse, but the way I read it is perhaps simpler:

Luke records (vs 46) that Paul and Barnabas said that their audience of Jews rejected (i.e., did not believe) the gospel and judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. Then Luke records that Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles who did believe and were appointed to eternal life (vs 48).

Acts 13:46,48 (YLT)

46 ...Paul and Barnabas said, `To you it was necessary that first the word of God be spoken, and seeing ye do thrust it away, and do not judge yourselves worthy of the life age-during, lo, we do turn to the nations;
47 ...
48 And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe -- as many as were appointed to life age-during;

So Luke is recording the contrast in how those Gentiles believed and were appointed to eternal life as opposed to those Jews who did not believe and were not deemed worthy of eternal life.

As for tautological... it may not be worth trying to explain. In short, I think it may be that Luke just says the Gentiles believed, and then - to answer the factual question "how many?" (as he seemed to like to do) - he tags on "as many as were appointed to eternal life." So he's staying on safe, factual ground (as he seemed to like to do) and using the reference to eternal life taken from a sentence or two before. The "appointed" word implies absolutely nothing about predetermination, as far as I can tell.

So that's what I guess. It's based on the assumption that Luke intended to give a raw, factual account of what the apostles did after Jesus' ascension. He recorded the who/when/where details and otherwise let the apostles' preaching speak for itself. It appears to me that he avoided introducing any of his own ideas (especially obscure and unclear doctrine) or editorializing about the events that he was recording, and I don't think he did. Therefore, we should intentionally avoid trying to read too much into his narrative.

I am also assuming that nothing in the Greek grammar makes it necessary that the believing is predicated on the appointing or vice versa in that sentence. You knowledgeable Greek grammarians can correct me if I'm wrong if you care to.

[Tychicus]

Luke records (vs 46) that Paul and Barnabas said that their audience of Jews rejected (i.e., did not believe) the gospel and judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. Then Luke records that Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles who did believe and were appointed to eternal life (vs 48).

Acts 13:46,48 (YLT)
46 ...Paul and Barnabas said, `To you it was necessary that first the word of God be spoken, and seeing ye do thrust it away, and do not judge yourselves worthy of the life age-during, lo, we do turn to the nations;
47 ...
48 And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe -- as many as were appointed to life age-during;

So Luke is recording the contrast in how those Gentiles believed and were appointed to eternal life as opposed to those Jews who did not believe and were not deemed worthy of eternal life.

Yes, Luke was certainly making this contrast; this is key to understanding the verse. But you left out verse 47:

I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.

Why did Luke throw in this verse, a prophecy from Isaiah 49? Well, God planned all along that the Gentiles would be included among his people. In other words the Gentiles were "appointed" for salvation. This was a hard pill to swallow for those Jews who made a big deal over the idea that they, and they alone, were the chosen people.

Many Jews did not like what Paul and Barnabas were doing. In their view if a Gentile wanted to be "saved" they had better get circumcised and live like Jews. Even many Christians believed this; we now call them "Judaizers".

This became a huge problem in those churches over the next few years as we can see from the book of Galatians (which was almost certainly written specifically to these cities of Acts 13 and 14). That is why it is so important for Luke to note that God appoints Gentiles. This is a major clue to verse 48, as I read the passage.

To be clear, I am not saying God appoints Gentile individuals. That is not the point. It is that God chose Gentiles. That is what the debate in these Galatian churches of Acts 13 and 14 was all about.

The "appointed" word implies absolutely nothing about predetermination, as far as I can tell.

Correct, the word "appointed" means roughly "determined". It does not mean "predetermined". The "pre" part comes from the tenses. See next section.

I am also assuming that nothing in the Greek grammar makes it necessary that the believing is predicated on the appointing or vice versa in that sentence.

Just about every English translation, in its normal reading, implies the appointing came first. Some are more explicit, using the pluperfect (e.g. had been appointed . . . believed); for example, the NAS, NRSV, and NET translate like this.

In Greek "appointed" is a perfect periphrastic with an imperfect helping verb, literally "were in the condition of having been appointed" insofar as you can make literal sense out of it in English. I'd hate to say the grammar makes it "absolutely necessary" the appointing comes first, but you'd need extraordinary evidence from the context to indicate otherwise. Any Greek experts are welcome to chime in here.

I think you'd have a real uphill battle trying to argue that the "appointed" doesn't come first.