Acts 13:48 (Periphrastic Construction)

[Guest]

Ok, so I'm tired of not knowing what the heck James White is talking about when he uses big terms like periphrastic. So, I'm trying to understand it. I know a little greek is dangerous, but if he wants to educate us, I'd love it if he would come interact on this point.

He continually indicates he wants someone to interact with the "periphrastic construction, so let's dance."

This is his chance -- Paidon, are you ready?

As near as I can tell so far, "periphrastic" is a not that big a deal -- "peri" means "round about" and "phrasis" means "to say," so all it means is the syntax here is a round about way of saying something that could have been said more simply if a different word form had been used.

For example, I can say something is "fishy" (using inflection) or "like a fish" (using periphrasis) or "stellar" vs. "pertaining to a star". Those extra words are used to avoid a word form that might have been more ambiguous. Some languages apparently have more inflective forms than others.

OK, now that this is out of the way, I fail to see how that makes any difference since the English version of the text also uses what appears to me anyway to be periphrastic construction.

as many as were "tasso"-ed

The meaning of tasso doesn't seem to turn on the construction.

Since tasso is capable of a range of meanings even within the passive voice (and I don't see how the middle voice matters much here), I don't see how the Greek construction or voice matters. The English in most translations has the same voice and construction, doesn't it? If so, then how does that help you get to the proper meaning by referencing the Greek syntax?

Let's assume tasso in this context doesn't mean "disposed" so much as "ordained". Isn't the passive voice somewhat ambiguous on who the actor is? Isn't that what makes it "passive?"

If "ordained" can mean committed or decided or elected, why must "elected" be the sense in which it is intended?

I "was ordained" could mean I "was committed." Even in the perfect sense, the verse could mean that as many people that day who did make a decision one way or the other made a decision to believe, couldn't it?

Related NOTE
I don't see how even the Calvinist interpretation solves their problem, though. Even if God acted in a special way that day and had specific plans that on this special occasion a certain group of people would go away with belief, does that necessarily imply that this is God's normative manner with which He deals with His people?

That's why this whole debate bothers me so much. There are so many verses where God appears to relate in a way that is contrary to the Calvinist understanding. I don't see how you can negate that even with a particular instance(s) of divine interference. So what if Adam was created different than me or if Paul was elect from the beginning of time or those at Pentecost were ordained from all time to believe on that day --- how does that establish a principle in the face of other Scripture that there is normative free will and responsibility for belief ?

[Guest]

Ok, so I'm tired of not knowing what the heck James White is talking about when he uses big terms like periphrastic. So, I'm trying to understand it. I know a little greek is dangerous, but if he wants to educate us, I'd love it if he would come interact on this point.

...

The meaning of tasso doesn't seem to turn on the construction.

Hi Darin,

I think that's where White will disagree with you. The meaning of tasso (tetagmenoi) does turn on the construction. It's not the periphrastic construction itself, but the forms of both the participle tetagmenoi and the verb eimi within the periphrastic that combine to make the normal translation "who were appointed" the correct one.

Here is the relevant passage from pp. 188-189 of The Potter's Freedom. He starts by observing that all major modern Bible translations render the passage as "who were appointed" or "who had been destined", and that none give as the translation "made ready" or "were disposed to":

• 
  But there is a grammatical reason why the normal translation and understanding of this passage should be accepted (along with the resultant meaning). The term "appointed" here is found in what is called a periphrastic construction. A periphrastic construction involves the use of a participle with a form of the Greek verb of being, eimi. By combining different tenses of both elements, a particular result is achieved. In this case, Luke uses the imperfect form of eimi together with the perfect passive participle. The result is that the phrase must be translated as a pluperfect.
  
  A pluperfect sense speaks of a completed action in the past, but unlike the perfect tense, the pluperfect does not contain the idea of a continuation of the past action into the present time. Therefore, the meaning of "appointed" refers to a past action. How can this be if, in fact, we are to understand this as an attitude in the Gentiles who have just heard that the gospel is coming to them? Obviously, to take it in the sense suggested by Buswell or Alford is to understand this action as something that takes place at the very point where the Apostles quote from Isaiah and proclaim that the gentiles can receive the blessings of the gospel. Luke writes, "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord." How can we think that prior to this they had somehow judged themselves worthy of eternal life? Instead, the most natural way to take the text is to see this as Luke's explanation of why some who heard believed while others did not: the difference was not that some were better or more "disposed" toward the gospel than others (the very idea of someone being disposed toward the gospel is utterly contrary to Paul's teaching in Romans 8:7-8): the difference is that some were appointed to eternal life as part of the eternal decree of God, and others were not.
  

(On the rules governing translation of the periphrastic, White's footnote references William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Zondervan, 1993), pp. 276-277 and Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Zondervan, 1996), pp. 647-649.)

(The reference to Buswell and Alford is from the quote on p. 187 from Norman Geisler in Chosen but Free, who cites them in support of the interpretations "as many as were prepared", or "as many as were disposed".)

So the basic argument is that:

1) The periphrastic and the forms of the participle (tetagmenoi) and the verb (en) require that the phrase be translated as a "pluperfect."

2) The pluperfect indicates a completed past action, without the idea of the action being ongoing into the present. The pluperfect means that the action is fully completed in the past prior to the time of believing (thus the English "had been".)

3) Luke uses the phrase to show why some believed: they were the recipients of a completed past action.

Do you agree with (1) and (2)? Does that not at least explain why all the major translations have "had been appointed" or "were destined" and that "judged themselves" or "considered themselves" are extremely inferior and misleading translations (since they move the action into the present; i.e. as a response to the hearing of the gospel, which goes against the pluperfect?)

If you disagree with (1) and (2), what support to you give? We're not talking about doctrine here, but about the rules for correctly translating the Greek language.

I think (3) follows naturally from (1) and (2), but if you disagree, then what is Luke's point?

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Hi Darin,

I think that's where White will disagree with you. The meaning of tasso (tetagmenoi) does turn on the construction. It's not the periphrastic construction itself, but the forms of both the participle tetagmenoi and the verb eimi within the periphrastic that combine to make the normal translation "who were appointed" the correct one.

Here is the relevant passage from pp. 188-189 of The Potter's Freedom. He starts by observing that all major modern Bible translations render the passage as "who were appointed" or "who had been destined", and that none give as the translation "made ready" or "were disposed to":

I look forward to digesting this -- it's the sort of exchange I was hoping for and hope that others with more knowledge in this area will chime in as well to interact with this approach.

As I say, I need to review more closely the grammatical issues, but as a fundamental matter I would just point out that the above response which I've heard White make repeatedly either "begs the question" or is an "appeal to authority" that doesn't help the question much. I respect the prior scholarship to a degree, but only to a degree, and have seen too many other points where politics or traditions influence the best of academic committees on these and other biblical and non-biblical areas. Conventional scholarship tends to agree on macro-evolutionary processes, too -- that doesn't obviate the need to justify the fundamental assumptions and data being reviewed from time to time or prevent even a layperson from having superior perspective at times to the scholastic community.

Thanks for the dialogue -- I will take the time to try and understand this but don't have the time today and wanted to address that single proclamation first.

[Guest]

I respect the prior scholarship to a degree, but only to a degree, and have seen too many other points where politics or traditions influence the best of academic committees on these and other biblical and non-biblical areas.

Hi Darin,

That's fine to be skeptical, but you're going to have to demonstrate that whatever bias you suspect has affected the translation committees of all of the major translations. That's a high bar to cross over, so you'll need some serious evidence to back it up. I see no evidence that the translation committees had any theological ax to grind on this verse.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

I found some time this afternoon sitting in a waiting room, so I had a chance to consider this response.... I don't see any need to decide whether the translators had a theological axe to grind, but they may well have honestly labored under false presuppositions or put their own undue trust in other contemporary scholarship. If there are other reasons to compel a particular definition, I'm willing to consider their particular justification, but as the committees don't (as far as I know) publish extensive notes analysis, etc., we'll have to make our own assumptions as to the reasons for their particular translation and address those.

Considering Dr. White's own scholastic credentials, I am pleased to interact with his own analysis.

I think I understand what he is saying. However, I still don't think it negates the Arminian position. I think there are, no doubt, some people who think "were disposed" means something along the lines of "were of a general mindset that was disposed generally towards believing such and such...." I believe Dr. White's analysis (if accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it) logically deals with this hypothetical individual. But, I would propose that this is either a straw man or it ignores the middle position because this is not the only way "were disposed" can be understood.

As I understand it, even in the pluperfect, the term could mean "were disposed" in the sense that they "had finally committed their mind to a certain disposition of the matter." In other words, a proper translation might be "had committed themselves to such a belief." This seems to be pluperfect, would violate none of the above grammatical rules, and remains faithful to the Arminian understanding of the passage.

Am I missing something?

[Guest]

As I understand it, even in the pluperfect, the term could mean "were disposed" in the sense that they "had finally committed their mind to a certain disposition of the matter." In other words, a proper translation might be "had committed themselves to such a belief." This seems to be pluperfect, would violate none of the above grammatical rules, and remains faithful to the Arminian understanding of the passage.

Am I missing something?

Hi Darin,

Yes, you are missing several things:

1) The point of a pluperfect (literally "more than complete") is that the action described not only occurred in the past, but was completed prior to some other stated action.

So the pluperfect means that the "were disposed" was completed before the hearing of the gospel and the belief. But how could this be so under the "Arminian understanding?" How could these people "dispose themselves" to eternal life prior to hearing the gospel?

2) You claim that a proper translation might be "had committed themselves to such a belief." This is grossly wrong on two accounts; you are adding the pronoun "themselves;" it is not in the Greek. Second, you have changed to enternal life (eis zoe aionos) into "to such a belief".

That's called eisegesis. You're really grasping at straws here when you have to add and change words to make the verse say what you want it to say.

The verse actually says:

a) Some portion of Paul's hearers had been appointed to eternal life, which appointment was completed before they began to hear the gospel.

b) That portion of Paul's hearers who had been the recipients of this appointment believed upon hearing the gospel.

The major translations capture this quite well. You've so far given us no actual reason to overturn these translations.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

I'm not sure where we'll end up here, but it does sound like we're beginning to get somewhere.

To address your second point first, I wasn't as precise as I could have been -- I don't think what I've done is eisegesis -- I didn't intend to suggest that the proper "literal translation" included "committed themselves" but instead to suggest that one of the shades of meaning of the term "committed" does include that notion, conceptually. I also wasn't intending to grasp at straws, but was sloppy and did intend to suggest the commitment was "to eternal life" and my use of "to such a belief" was just plain sloppiness on my part.

On the more substantive part, though, I think I still must be missing something even after your enlightenment.

I am willing to acknowledge that pluperfect implies that the verb action was completed before some event. But, why is it that the relevant event must be the "hearing of the gospel?" How do we know it was prior to the hearing of the gospel instead of some other event in the discussion such as "belief?" Couldn't their state of commitment in their heart be resolved after the hearing of the gospel but before the intellectual "belief" ?

In my theology, the gospel itself does not save, but is "unto salvation." When I hear the gospel, the Spirit works supernaturally on my heart and if I cooperatively let that spirit soften my heart and dispose my heart to receiving the power of the gospel message, my mind can then believe, and that belief (both spiritually in the core of my being and intellectually as a function of my rational mind) is what will save me.

In my opinion, this passage is entirely consistent with the ordo solutis I present above, and my ability to resist the power of the spirit in that moment remains as it does in my everyday walk even as a believer.

What follows is more of a rhetorical question since I don't want to detract from the present discussion. Though I would love to discuss it if you want to start a new thread.

I have often wanted a Calvinist to explain to me how a believer has more power to resist the Holy Spirit's leading in my walk of Holiness in trying to walk in the Spirit than does a non-believer who is responding to the gospel. Shouldn't I be in a better position with a softer heart to hear and respond to the Spirit than the unregenerate ? Why would regeneration be the only place where the Spirit can "fail" (to use a Calvinistic disparagement).

[Guest]

I fail to see the difficulty here for the arminian, even if White is correct about the Greek. When and how these gentiles were disposed Luke does not say. I believe they were God seekers, perhaps just like Cornelius.

Consider the context:

Acts 13:38-48, NKJV

38. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39. and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. 40. Beware therefore, lest what has been spoken in the prophets come upon you:
41. ‘ Behold, you despisers,
Marvel and perish!
For I work a work in your days,
A work which you will by no means believe,
Though one were to declare it to you.’”
42. So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. 43. Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44. On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. 45. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. 46. Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47. For so the Lord has commanded us:
‘ I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
48. 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.

Here we see the following:

1. Paul had been preaching to a mixed group of Jews and devout gentiles in a synagogue.

2. Some of the Jews rejected the word of God and judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life.

3. The devout proselytes begged to hear more of Paul's message. His preaching ("the gospel is the power unto salvation") had ordained (disposed) them to eternal life; they were "almost persuaded".

4. The word spread about Paul's message and the next Sabbath many more gentiles turned out to hear Paul.

5. Many of these gentiles accepted the gospel, just as the disbelieving Jews rejected it.

What's so hard about that if you do not have to fit the scripture into a particular paradigm? Seems to be no proof at all for Calvinism if more than one proof text verse is considered.

I'm also curious why we should respect James White as a more able expositor of Greek texts than men such as Henry Alford and A. T. Robertson, who do not agree with him. Are we to think they have a bias and White does not?

[Guest]

I am willing to acknowledge that pluperfect implies that the verb action was completed before some event.

Well, we're making progress. Seems like you have given up on arguing for a "proper" translation and now we're back to arguing the interpretation.

But, why is it that the relevant event must be the "hearing of the gospel?" How do we know it was prior to the hearing of the gospel instead of some other event in the discussion such as "belief?" Couldn't their state of commitment in their heart be resolved after the hearing of the gospel but before the intellectual "belief" ?

No, for three reasons:

1) The belief is a response to the hearing of the gospel. The timeframe for the operation of the pluperfect is not the belief, but the hearing. The whole point of the pluperfect is to emphasize the completededness of the action. By moving the "appointed" into the interval between hearing and believing, you no longer have the pluperfect, because you have continuation of the action.

2) Your argument hinges on the subject of the participle tetagmenoi being the Gentiles themselves. But in other cases where the translation "appointed themselves" is used, the reflexive pronoun (autous) is given. It is not present in 13:48.

3) If we place the appointment into the interval between hearing and belief, the verse becomes a tautology, and no longer tells us anything. It becomes "those who responded believed", or "those who decided to believe believed." Well, of course those who decided to believe did believe, but this verse explains why they decided to believe: they were the recipients of a past completed action (tetagmenoi eis zoe ainos).

In my theology, the gospel itself does not save, but is "unto salvation." When I hear the gospel, the Spirit works supernaturally on my heart and if I cooperatively let that spirit soften my heart and dispose my heart to receiving the power of the gospel message, my mind can then believe, and that belief (both spiritually in the core of my being and intellectually as a function of my rational mind) is what will save me.

I understand that's your theology. It's a good definition of synergism. But it crashes on the rocks of this passage.

In my opinion, this passage is entirely consistent with the ordo solutis I present above, and my ability to resist the power of the spirit in that moment remains as it does in my everyday walk even as a believer.

What follows is more of a rhetorical question since I don't want to detract from the present discussion. Though I would love to discuss it if you want to start a new thread.

I have often wanted a Calvinist to explain to me how a believer has more power to resist the Holy Spirit's leading in my walk of Holiness in trying to walk in the Spirit than does a non-believer who is responding to the gospel. Shouldn't I be in a better position with a softer heart to hear and respond to the Spirit than the unregenerate ? Why would regeneration be the only place where the Spirit can "fail" (to use a Calvinistic disparagement).

Sorry, I don't understand the question at all. Maybe you can rephrase it?

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

I fail to see the difficulty here for the arminian, even if White is correct about the Greek. When and how these gentiles were disposed Luke does not say. I believe they were God seekers, perhaps just like Cornelius.

Consider the context:

Acts 13:38-48, NKJV

38. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39. and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. 40. Beware therefore, lest what has been spoken in the prophets come upon you:
41. ‘ Behold, you despisers,
Marvel and perish!
For I work a work in your days,
A work which you will by no means believe,
Though one were to declare it to you.’”
42. So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. 43. Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44. On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. 45. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. 46. Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47. For so the Lord has commanded us:
‘ I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
48. 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.

Here we see the following:

1. Paul had been preaching to a mixed group of Jews and devout gentiles in a synagogue.

2. Some of the Jews rejected the word of God and judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life.

3. The devout proselytes begged to hear more of Paul's message. His preaching ("the gospel is the power unto salvation") had ordained (disposed) them to eternal life; they were "almost persuaded".

4. The word spread about Paul's message and the next Sabbath many more gentiles turned out to hear Paul.

5. Many of these gentiles accepted the gospel, just as the disbelieving Jews rejected it.

What's so hard about that if you do not have to fit the scripture into a particular paradigm? Seems to be no proof at all for Calvinism if more than one proof text verse is considered.

Hi Homer,

It's the opponents of Calvinism that beat their heads on 13:48; I've been trying to defend the translation found in all the major versions against the "woulda, coulda, shouda" translations offered to blunt the force of the verse. Seems like I've succeeded, as the arguments for alternate translations have evaporated and now we're just talking interpretation.

Your points 1-5 look fine to me with the exception of this:

His preaching ("the gospel is the power unto salvation") had ordained (disposed) them to eternal life

In addition to failing to deal with the pluperfect, the addition of "disposed" in parentheses softens the force of the participle. It is not the case that tetagmenoi means that they were "partially assigned" or "inclined toward", but it means "appointed", "destined", "assigned", etc. Whenever it happened (and the pluperfect answers that), this assignment was definite, and is the explanation for the response of those Gentiles' to the gospel.

I see you don't push for the "disposed themselves" argument, which is wholly unsupportable from the text. Good!

I'm also curious why we should respect James White as a more able expositor of Greek texts than men such as Henry Alford and A. T. Robertson, who do not agree with him. Are we to think they have a bias and White does not?

Until you deal with the actual arguments, this is just hand-waving.

Cheers,
Bob