Acts 13:48 (Periphrastic Construction)

[karenstricycle]

J.Edwards,

Was that a slip when you left out "Calvinist" between "scholarly" and "realm"?

Many in the scholarly realm see Alford as sub-par and this is just one of the reasons why.

Do you dump A. T. Robertson in with your sub-par group? On Acts 13:48 Robertson comments:

"Why these gentiles ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation". (my underlining for emphasis)

[Guest]

I too have brought this same thing up. No calvinist yet has answered it. You can go through all the greek explanations you want to show that the ordaining/destining/appointing to eternal life was before they believed.

THAT DOES NOT PROVE CALVINISM!

So where does Luke specify when this ordaining/destining/appointing/disposing to eternal life occured? Merely demonstrating that it was prior to the initial act of faith does not prove Calvinism. Does not the word "ordain" carry the idea of "put in position" (like an army), or arrange? Where does it say that God is doing the the appointing [or the like] in this verse?

[Sharon]

I too have brought this same thing up. No calvinist yet has answered it. You can go through all the greek explanations you want to show that the ordaining/destining/appointing to eternal life was before they believed.

Hi Troy,

And yet the opponents of this passage continue to assault the translation. So it must be defended.

THAT DOES NOT PROVE CALVINISM!

Nobody here has claimed as far as I know that Acts 13:48 "proves Cavlinism." Acts 13:48 says what it says. The Calvinism-haters don't like it, so they rail against it. It's consistent with the Calvinist system and inconsistent (evidently, else why all the ink spilled?) with all forms of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism.

So where does Luke specify when this ordaining/destining/appointing/disposing to eternal life occured?

It doesn't give a specfic date and time, as I have stated already in this thread. It does place the appointing prior to the timeframe of the passage, as has been explained ad nauseum.

Merely demonstrating that it was prior to the initial act of faith does not prove Calvinism. Does not the word "ordain" carry the idea of "put in position" (like an army), or arrange?

Yes, it does. (Edit: I should clarify that I'm responding to the question about the meaning of "ordain")

Where does it say that God is doing the the appointing [or the like] in this verse?

The verse doesn't say. But it's enough to demonstrate that the Gentiles were the receipients of this appointment, and that the appointment explains their belief. The only thing we know from the grammar is that the Gentiles did not appoint themselves. If you want to say that somebody besides God appointed them, have at it (but who else would have the power to appoint someone to eternal life? It would seem that God is the reasonable inference). Your synergism is destroyed either way.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

It's consistent with the Calvinist system and inconsistent (evidently, else why all the ink spilled?) with all forms of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism.

Couldn't the Arminian say the same thing? I don't think the ink proves anything except that reasonable men can disagree on what it says.

It doesn't give a specfic date and time, as I have stated already in this thread. It does place the appointing prior to the timeframe of the passage, as has been explained ad nauseum.

I still haven't seen a Calvinist support the appointing prior to the timeframe of the entire "passage." I only see the argument that it is prior to a particular moment in time (when they were saved, for example). There is even an Arminian position that it was the week prior when they last met, which is prior to that day where they believed.

Yes, it does.

NunHuh...

[Sharon]

There is even an Arminian position that it was the week prior when they last met, which is prior to that day where they believed.

Hi Darin,

Does anyone besides Homer (his "plan B" if attacks on the translation don't hold up) hold to that?

In any event, Arminians have never been known for their consistency. Any Arminian who held to that would be destroying his own position, so I don't see any point in responding to it. It's right up there with the "well it doesn't say God, so maybe somebody else ordained them." OK, whatever.

Yes, it does.

NunHuh...

I've edited my post to add a clarification that "Yes it does" was in response to the question about the meaning of "ordain". Perhaps you assumed I was responding to the first sentence. Or do you disagree with Troy's assertion about the meaning of τεταγμενοι ?

Cheers,
Bob

[Sharon]

On Acts 13:48 Robertson comments:

"Why these gentiles ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation". (my underlining for emphasis)

Hi Homer,

That "these gentiles ranged themselves..." Luke does not tell us, so it shouldn't be curious that he doesn't tell us why. In the absence of the reflexive pronoun, you and Robertson have no basis for the "themselves" claim. The remainder of Robertson's quote is completely irrelevant.

Cheers,
Bob

[karenstricycle]

Bob,

In reference to my suggestion that the gentiles were disposed to eternal life on the prior Sabbath at the preaching of Paul, you wrote:

Does anyone besides Homer (his "plan B" if attacks on the translation don't hold up) hold to that?

Well "anyone" certainly does. Just last night I was reading J. W. McGarvey's commemtary on Acts, dated 1892, where he comments regarding tasso as follows:

We scarcely need to observe....that the specific meaning of this verb in a given passage is to be determined by the context. In the passage before us the context presents no allusion to something done by God for one part of the audience, and not done for the other; or to some purpose entertained respecting the one, and not the other; but it speaks of two contrasted states of mind among the people, and two consequent courses of conduct. Of the Jews present it is said, first, that they were filled with jealousy; second, that they contradicted the things said by Paul, and blasphemed; third, that they judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. In contrast with these, the gentiles, first, were glad; second, they glorified the word of God; third, they were τεταγμένοι for eternal life. Now which of the specific meanings of the Greek word shall we here insert? It stands contrasted with the mental act of the Jews in judging themselves unworthy of eternal life, and the law of antithesis requires that we understand it of some mental act of the opposite nature. The rendering, were determined or were disposed for eternal life, is the only one of which the case admits. The verb is in the passive voice, and the past tense, and therefore it represents a mental state which had been brought about before the moment of which the writer is speaking. In other words, the statement that "as many as were determined for eternal life believed" implies that they were brought to this determination before they believed. At some previous time in their history these gentiles, who had been born and raised in heathenism, had heard of eternal life as taught by the Jews. Either under the teaching of the Jews, or under the teaching of Paul since his arrival in Antioch, or under both combined, they had been brought out of a state of mental confusion on this transcendentally important subject, into a determination to obtain eternal life if possible.

Let it be noted that being determined for eternal life, and the believing, stand here as cause and effect, or at least as antecedent and consequent. This is not at all unnatural and uncommon. A man who has learned that eternal life may be obtained, and has made up his mind to obtain it if within his power is the man to readily accept the way of obtaining it when that way is clearly pointed out to him; while the man who is so much absorbed in worldly matters as to be indifferent to eternal life is the very man to allow the testimony concerning the way of obtaining it to pass in one ear and out the other. We find it so in all our congregations at the present day. Two men sit side by side under the sound of the same gospel sermon; one is awake to the importance of the life to come, while the other is absorbed in the life that now is. The latter will turn a deaf ear to the preaching, incurring Paul's reproach of judging himself unworthy of eternal life, while the former willl believe the glad message, and fly to the seat of mercy. It is precisely this difference as respects eternal life which Luke here points out; and he points it out because it accounts for the fact that one class in Paul's audience believed, and the other did not. It leaves the rssponsibiliy for belief and unbelief, with their eternal consequences , on men, and not on God.


I hardly thought that this idea was novel with me and am sure there are many others who have noted this. One of your great proof-texts of Calvinism is no proof at all.

You can drop your remarks about Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism and we will refrain from mentioning Manichaeanism. Fair enough?[/quote]

[Sharon]

Just last night I was reading J. W. McGarvey's commemtary on Acts, dated 1892, where he comments regarding tasso as follows:

We scarcely need to observe....that the specific meaning of this verb in a given passage is to be determined by the context. In the passage before us the context presents no allusion to something done by God for one part of the audience, and not done for the other;

Well of course the context presents exactly that. (I've address the "by God" part of this above.)

or to some purpose entertained respecting the one, and not the other; but it speaks of two contrasted states of mind among the people, and two consequent courses of conduct. Of the Jews present it is said, first, that they were filled with jealousy; second, that they contradicted the things said by Paul, and blasphemed; third, that they judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. In contrast with these, the gentiles, first, were glad; second, they glorified the word of God; third, they were τεταγμένοι for eternal life. Now which of the specific meanings of the Greek word shall we here insert? It stands contrasted with the mental act of the Jews in judging themselves unworthy of eternal life, and the law of antithesis requires that we understand it of some mental act of the opposite nature.

Since the grammatical constructs are not in parallel, the "law of antithesis" would not seem to apply. The reflexive pronoun is present in those cases where "themselves" is translated, and is absent in 13:48.

The rendering, were determined or were disposed for eternal life, is the only one of which the case admits.

And yet we fail to find this "only admissible" rendering in *any* major translation. Why? Because his argumentation is simply wrong.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Homer,
I really don't have a problem with A.T. Robertson's commentary.
What he said is the best translation is "appointed", I can understand that.
He also said there is no evidence syntactically and I can also understand that also. Robertson also isn't going to write a 5 page dissertation on a given verse either to fully explain his reasons. He did have appointed "without" the reflexive understanding however which is somewhat deceptive considering in his commentary he speaks of the gentiles "ranged themselves" which is contrary to his own translation of the word that he says is the best translation.

Luke wasn't and didn't try to make a deep theological statement on regeneration/election here. I wouldn't even necessarily base or start any argument on election here. A writer doesn't have to thoroughly explain every doctrine inside a narrative many things can be understood from what the writer already has revealed in what he wrote elsewhere i.e. Acts 4:27-28.

The divine passive is usually an argument from absence hence there can only be an argument from context and not necessarily syntax. Though the syntax and context perfectly fit for a divine passive.

[Guest]

Quick question for you all. I have always believed that the Bible taught that salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"....
So the Calvinist says that faith and belief are something that God "makes" a person do?
When looking at Act's 13:48 if I try to understand it from a Calvinist perspective, I must be missing something.

"Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."

Does the Calvinist say that the "appointing" happened by God and that this means there was not a "choice" by any of those who heard the message? If I am understanding the Calvinist correctly, which forgive me if I am not, then please explain to me the Gentiles that heard the message, where glad and glorified the word, but were NOT appointed to eternal life. Did they not believe? and yet were glad and glorified God? I don't know, I must be missing something because that does not seem to make sense to me.

Doug