I was continuing to read in Acts 13 after the sermon in church today and found this little verse slipped in by Dr. Luke:
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48, TNIV)
Can anyone comment on the Greek verb form of “were appointed”? Is this an instance where the plenary meaning is “all who were [and who continue to be] appointed for eternal life…”? Certainly the translation at hand suggests predestination as a present reality for those who heard and believed.
NRSV: “and as many as had been destined for eternal life…”
NASB: “and as many as had been appointed to eternal life…”
HCSB: “and all who had been appointed to eternal life…”
ESV: “and as many were appointed to eternal life…”
NLTse: “all who were chosen for eternal life…”
NJB: “all who were destined for eternal life…”
REB: “and those who were marked out for eternal life…”
Lattimore: “and all those who were destined to life everlasting…”
My biggest problem with those translations that use “as many as” (NRSV, NASB, ESV) is that it opens the ambiguity that predestination is a quota system – it’s not so much “who” believes, but “how many” believe.
This was the very verse that got me on the reformed idea of predestination. Not Romans 9, nor Ephesians 1, or John 6 or…
This verse. I remember reading it and saying: “Well, there it is.”
ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι [as much, as many as] ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον
as the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified the word of the lord, and they believed- as many as were appointed to eternal life.
I love the new design by the way
Oh, I forgot to mention the greek form of “were appointed.” If this is too many comments, please combine them
The phrase is actually a periphrastic phrase, which is basically a participle combined with a linking verb (in most cases, “to be”). The phrase here is “ἦσαν τεταγμένοι”
ἦσαν = εἰμί – “to be” -3rd person, imperfect, active, indicative, plural.
τεταγμένοι = τάσσω – “To bring about an order of things by arrangingl to determine, appoint, etc.” – Perfect, Passive, Participle, Nominative, Masculine, Plural
Since it is periphrastic, the whole phrase should be taken as a unit. Some say that tassw should be rendered “were disposed,” but very few lexicons list this as a meaning, and only one translation that I’m aware of- the New World Translation. The participle itself is perfect, which denotes a finished act with on-going significance, and is also passive, which means the action is being done to them. So even if we take it as “disposed” someone else is making them so disposed.
[...] – “Appointed” or “Disposed?” 8 06 2008 In a recent blog entry, Elshaddai comments on Acts 13:48. He quotes the TNIV: When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; [...]
There have been efforts by many to get around the “perfect passive,” saying that it can be understood as a middle, “those who appointed themselves.” But they have all failed. We’ll do well to treat “ἦσαν τεταγμένοι”
as passive, though expressed in a periphrastic construction.
Good post, by the way.
ElShaddai,
I think you dismissed the best option too quickly. Romans 11:25 does speak of a quota system. And at the end, which we both know I believed was AD 70, that number had been accomplished, and all of true (not ethnic) Israel was saved. (Related to this are my posts on election [1], [2], [3], which you probably saw)
@Bryan – thanks for the Greek lesson. I’ll try to save some comments for your post, which looks much more detailed!
I’m sure that I was nitpicking on the “as many as” — my first reaction was from a logic viewpoint: I read “and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” as there were N number of people who “had been appointed” and there were “as many” who “believed”, so also N. The way “as many as” is worded, however, you cannot logically say that both N’s include the same people. It is likely to assume that they are the same, but you cannot prove it. That’s why I said it opened up an ambiguity that may not be in the Greek.
@TC – would you equate the “those who appointed themselves” effort an expression of self will or something more specific?
@Steve – thanks for pointing out the Romans passage. I did indeed read your posts on election, but frankly didn’t have the understanding to intelligently discuss it.
@all – somehow this one verse by Luke was much clearer than all the rest of Paul. Or at least it can be read as a seed that Paul unpacks in all of his letters.
@TC – would you equate the “those who appointed themselves” effort an expression of self will or something more specific?
Yes, I would see it as self-willed. That reading becomes the middle voice, which is acting on behalf of self.
I just got in on the action on my blog: Acts 13:48: Arminian? Calvinistic?
Well, women at least have a possibility of being saved through childbirth. (1 Timothy 2:15) Not sure what men can hope for.
There are other proof texts that show that Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
In all these cases there is a cultural context that is obscure to us but wasn’t to the original writer.
P.S. Can you change your terms to CC so that I can quote from your blog?
David, granted this is one verse and there are many others to support a more universal view of salvation, as you say. That said, can you shed any more light on what you had in mind by an “obscure cultural context”?
P.S. I think I understood you regarding CC – is that what you had in mind?
Groovy on the CC.
I think in general when we come across a passage that strikes us funny we should just let it slide. In general we know what this story is talking about. Grabbing a verse can just be proof-texting. I don’t sweat “baptism for the dead” and “saved through childbirth” and “all Israel will be saved” because I think in their wider context they are just one part of a larger discourse.
This is one reason I’m a good language learner: I have a high tolerance for ambiguity!
This is just a quick answer so don’t quote me out of context!
Did you change servers? You’re no longer showing up on My Comments.
Did you change servers? You’re no longer showing up on My Comments.
Yep, I made the switch from WordPress.com to my own hosted install late last week. I’ve been relying more on the co.mments RSS feed to track posts, but still investigating other tools too.
This is an interesting one. Yes, a periphrastic perfect, but is it passive or middle? Interestingly when conservative Christians discuss the same verb with the prefix hupo-, e.g. in Ephesians 5:21 (admittedly a present rather than perfect participle), the middle/passive forms are taken to have a middle sense, “submit yourselves” rather than “since you have been submitted”. But the received interpretation of the same verb without the prefix in Acts 13:48 is strictly passive, “having been appointed” rather than “having positioned yourself”. Could theological presuppositions be showing here? The truth is probably that there is no clear distinction between the middle and passive in Greek, such that in both verses it is impossible to say whether the agent is ourselves or someone else, presumably God. We just know that we are in a specific position (the basic meaning of the verb), heading for eternal life and subject to one another, and it is a fundamental and unresolvable tension of Christian theology whether God does it or we do, or a bit of both.
Thinking a bit more about this, in the light of the discussion at TC’s CONNECTING blog. While Bryan (whose own blog didn’t choose me to comment on it!) in his comment there misunderstands Marshall’s position, which seems to be that all who had accepted the basics of Judaism believed, he does have a point that the clause must mean more than “whoever believed believed”.
So I am suggesting an alternative interpretation based on taking “to eternal life” with “believed”. I would translate something like “all who were rightly positioned believed and received eternal life”. That begs the question of what “rightly positioned” means, but it is not necessarily more than “ready to accept the message”. So the verse by no means forces a Calvinist interpretation.
Thank you, Peter – it’s great to get some different perspectives on this. I’ll take a closer look later tonight!
So I am suggesting an alternative interpretation based on taking “to eternal life” with “believed”. I would translate something like “all who were rightly positioned believed and received eternal life”. That begs the question of what “rightly positioned” means, but it is not necessarily more than “ready to accept the message”. So the verse by no means forces a Calvinist interpretation.
What does “rightly positioned” mean in light of the context?
FF Bruce, who was no pushover when it came to the biblical languages, takes τεταγμένοι as passive in his commentary in the NICNT series (p. 267). He cites papyrus evidence for the use of the verb in the sense of “inscribe” or “enroll.”
TC, since FF Bruce was a Calvinist, he would say that, wouldn’t he? The problem is that there is no way to decide in the Greek whether the verb is middle or passive, so anyone has to decide on the basis of their presuppositions.
The verb basically means “to arrange or put in order”. In the middle voice it can mean “arrange oneself”. Or it can mean “agree to pay a sum of money”. Bruce can’t just take one meaning which he finds in papyri and assume that is the meaning in question here.
I have to agree with Peter on this one. I would prefer the translation that those that believed were rightly positioned for eternal life, or perhaps set in order for eternal life. τεταγμενοι seems to be a military term, perhaps, and therefore suggests something being set in order. Could be wrong.
Peter, yes FF Bruce was calvinist. But that is not what is at stake here.
Tassw is used 8times in the GNT, and only once is a rendered middle. Most of it’s occurrences are in the passive. So it’s safe to go with the passive here, as reflected in most translations.
Here is a great quote from a great man of God: “Can we rescue a word, and discover a universe? Can we study a language, and awake to the Truth? Can we bury ourselves in a lexicon, and arise in the presence of God?” (Cambridge Sermons, p.70) With these words Sir Edwyn Hoskyns startled a congregation in the chapel of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. And they remind us of the important but perhaps limited place that the study of words alone can have. But the “divine word”, it is God’s, and cannot be held, but spoken and given out…Kerygma: “History has been taken up into the supra-historical, without ceasing to be history.”
Always the primary principle of authority, is God’s own self-disclosure! God calls us, “the glory of the word of the Lord”! Here is our “ordination” also. We respond. Cannot we call this a synergy? I am asking my Calvinist brethren this question.
[...] are some posts related to a passage that doesn’t usually come up in comparisons. Luke slips in predestination… – He Is Sufficient Acts 13:48 – “Appointed” or “Disposed?” – I follow Christ Acts 13:48: [...]
[...] Here is a good question concerning predestination. [...]