Acts 13:48 - exegetical dialog

7 Reasons from Context & Grammar Showing Acts 13:48 Gives an Example of Personal Response to the Gospel … not Divine Election BRIAN H. WAGNER·SUNDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2016

1. The context contrasts the Jews who judged themselves “unworthy of everlasting life” (vs 46) with the Gentiles who “arranged themselves (got in line) for everlasting life” (vs 48). 2. The context of verse 48 has five verbal actions (heard, were glad, glorified, arranged, believed), and one would normally expect all those verbal actions to be accomplished by the same subject – the Gentiles who were there that day. 3. The grammar (semantic range of meaning) of Greek participle - τεταγμένοι – must be determined by context since the Greek word τασσω, is a generic word, almost exactly like our English word “arrange”. The choice of “ordain” is clearly interpretive, implying that God must be the actor of this “arranging”. 4. The context does not mention God as an actor in this story at all, but only the Jews, Paul and Barnabas, and the Gentiles, except perhaps in the last words of verse 52 – “filled…with the Holy Spirit”. Therefore the implied subject of this participle should naturally be found among one of these actors, not God, unless a similar verse in Luke or Acts can be shown where Luke introduces God’s activity in a list of actions by another subject. 5. The grammar (inflected form) of Greek participle - τεταγμένοι – denotes that a choice has to be made between middle or passive voice, since both are spelled the same way. The passive voice denotes action received by the subject (“were arranged”) and the middle voice denotes reflexive action by the subject (“arranged themselves”). This verb - τασσω - is only used 9 times in the NT and twice are in the active voice, with the one of those instances of the active voice clearly showing the action being done by the subject on themselves (1Cor 16:15). The other instance in active voice, in Acts 15:2, shows that the elders arranged for Paul to represent them in Jerusalem. Of the seven other instances, one is clearly middle in form, Matt 28:16, where Christ arranges for Himself to meet with the apostles in Galilee. The last six are middle or passive in form, so the context must determine which fits best. Of the last six, the middle reflexive idea fits best for Matt 8:9, Luke 7:8, and Acts 28:23 for they are much like Matt 28:16. The passive idea, where the subject receives the action, arranged by someone else, fits best for Acts 22:10 and Rom 13:1, and in those two contexts God can be assumed to be the one doing the arranging, though there is no hint in those contexts that He had to do it before creation. Since the middle/reflexive idea fits well with five of the nine contexts, it can be expected to also fit as normal for the context in Acts 13:48, making the reflexive idea found in six of nine NT instances of this verb.

6. The grammar (lexical evidence) of this same verb as a middle participle was used in Classical Greek of soldiers and ships getting in line, according to an example found in Liddell Scott. (I, 1. fall in, form in order of battle… formed in a circle… having drawn up their ships in four lines). It is not hard to visualize, that when Paul and Barnabas said they were now turning to the Gentiles, that those Gentiles rushed to get in line to profess their commitment of faith and be baptized. Luke is saying that as many as got in line for everlasting life through the Gospel, did indeed become believers! 7. The grammar (less contextual but possible) concedes that God or the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, might be the main subjects of this one of five verbal ideas in 13:48. That is, there could be the passive idea of God or the apostles having first arranged for the Gentiles to hear the Gospel for the purpose of their receiving everlasting life. However, the passive verbal concept of those offering this arrangement assumes a voluntary response of those being so arranged. And Luke confirms the acceptance of that arrangement by them by confirming their act as a personal commitment of trust in the active voice (“believed”), and not in the passive voice (“were converted”). If Calvinists have as many contextual/grammatical reasons for the idea of divine ordination before creation being taught in this verse, let them show the evidence. They will look in vain for mention of “before creation” or clear identification of God’s direct activity in this context. I do not hold as necessary to show exegetical confirmation by other scholars, but it can be helpful for those who ask, “Did the Holy Spirit lead others to affirm this interpretation based on normal context and grammar, and not an interpretation swayed by theological bias?” So on biblehub.com one can find such confirmation in the comments by Ellicott, Benson, Knowling (Expositor’s Greek), Lumby (Cambridge Bible), and Clarke. October 23 at 6:49pm

Comments on #1 Keith W. Thompson - I appreciate the thought you've put into this argument. (I wish more people would take the time to actually exegete passages!) Let me give you a few responses in a few different posts. Your first point, which I take as your thesis, seems to be filled with a number of presuppositions which appear to be begging the question. But since your subsequent points are meant to substantiate this thesis, most of those, I will try to address in later posts.

But, one question I would ask you with regard to your first point here, is this: when verse 46 states that the Jews "... thrust it [the gospel] aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life..." do you think that the Jews believed that they were ACTUALLY rejecting eternal life? Or do you think that they were simply unable to accept the gospel due to the sin in their hearts and unbelief? In other words, do you think that they would have agreed with Paul & Barnabas in their assessment that they were willingly rejecting eternal life? October 25 at 1:21pm Brian H. Wagner - Thank you Keith W. Thompson for your kind words. The Jews knew that they were not trusting the message or the messengers, but understood that they were being offered everlasting life. Everlasting life, of course, will not be completely verified by experience until one's resurrection. Commitment to something unseen is what faith is before salvation. The Jews were able to make such a commitment. The power of the gospel enabled them to, but they rejected it. After salvation that faith becomes assurance. Calvinists do not believe it is truly faith until it is assurance, and that such assurance is irresistibly given only to the elect. Though I agree that the assurance is irresistible after regeneration, I disagree that a commitment of faith before regeneration is unnecessary, but is exactly what God enables, and is not irresistible, through the power of the gospel. October 25 at 1:53pm

Comments on #2 Keith W. Thompson - To your second point: I agree that one would normally expect all five to have the same actor, "IF" the voice was uniform. But that is not the case. 4 of the verbs are in the active voice, and one is passive (or "possibly" middle) as you mention in your next point. You don't seem to take the change in voice into account... October 25 at 1:29pm

Brian H. Wagner - That is a fair point. But that is why I led with the first contextual point. The comparison/contrast between the reactions of the Jews and Gentiles is significant. If you add the passive verb in vs 45 "were filled with envy" to the mix, I don't think you would say it was God who filled the Jews with envy, but even that was of their own doing. It makes the comparison with the Gentiles response more in keeping with this context. The Calvinist still must show a similar list of verbal actions with a dissimilar subject for one in another example by Paul or the NT to gain more weight against the contextual point I was making. October 25 at 2:03pm

Comments on #3 Keith W. Thompson - Re: I'm not sure where you got the word "arranged," but it seems very selective. I looked the word up in five different lexicons, and the word "arrange" is only mentioned in one of them, and even then in this context: "To arrange, put in order, Hdt., etc.: esp. to draw up in order of battle, to form, array, marshal, both of troops and ships, " A FAR better "commonly used English word" to compare {tasso} to would be the word "appoint." People are appointed to all sorts of different things, and yes, context determines what they were appointed TO, yet, the word "appoint" just as the Gr. word {tasso} always connotes that one person, group, or thing(s) is being placed into some sort of relationship by someone else. I perused all 94 times this Greek word is used in the Scriptures, and while I admit that I may have overlooked one (I only pooled briefly) I cannot find ONE time out of the 94 that this word ever means that someone was appointing themselves to something. EVERY time this word is used (again, unless I overlooked one...) it means that someone or something is appointed by someone OTHER THAN themselves to a position, post, or relation. October 25 at 1:43pm Brian H. Wagner - The word "arrange" is the first choice in Dictionary of NT Theology (Colin Brown, ed). It would fit as a translation, I believe in all NT contexts. The basic idea of the word is

to set in order. The word "appoint" fits perhaps when a superior is doing the arranging for the future setup. But "ordain" in modern English especially is too theological in nature. Though the LXX uses this word almost 10x more than the NT, and it rarely uses it for passive or reflexive voices (like Niphal or Hithpael stems), it does show this action can be performed by the individual on themselves, like 1Cor 16:15 shows and the middle voice shows (e.g.. "arranging for oneself to meet with others" Matt 28:16). See Judg 18:31, Ezek 40:4. October 25 at 2:38pm Keith W. Thompson - Re: Why do you think the word "ordain" is too theological in nature, while "appoint" is not? October 25 at 2:44pm Brian H. Wagner - The term "ordain" automatically makes most think of before creation. The word "appoint" at least allows for some prior conditional elements to be fulfilled before the appointment is made. October 25 at 3:40pm Keith W. Thompson - Do you hold to the doctrine of divine impassibility? If not, why not? If so, how do you define it, esp. in relation to your above comment? October 25 at 3:43pm Brian H. Wagner - No. I believe that is a false, harmful doctrine which has elevated a definition from philosophy about God's nature causing the clarity of Scripture as normally read to be overturned and rejected! I am sure you are aware of the verses in historical narrative or pedagogic literature in Scripture that clearly reveal that God not only experiences emotion, suffering pain and pleasure, and in response to activity initiated by man. For example, over fifty times in the OT God reports that man had provoked Him to wrath. God is not imperfect because of this, but this the biblical definition of His perfection! Of course, there are aspects deeper and inscrutable to His experience in comparison to ours, but the

Scripture speaks with a univocal voice about it, not analogical, which idea undermines the meaning of inspiration and the incarnation. October 25 at 4:18pm

Comments on #4 Keith W. Thompson - Re: Acts 13:44 44 The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. When the word of the Lord is being proclaimed, the Lord is acting. Secondly, assuming that this word means what it means every other time it is used in Scripture, it would indicate that, of the "actors" in the context, the one actor that can be ruled out is the Gentiles themselves. That leaves us with asking, WHO appointed the Gentiles to believe? Was it Paul, Barnabas, the Jews, or God? October 25 at 1:48pm Brian H. Wagner - You must admit that all of us believe in the omnipresence of the Lord and His activity in every situation. But the story does not clearly state God as an actor, as a subject of any verb. Do understand what middle voice means? You cannot rule out the Gentiles as actors because of it possibly/probably being middle voice. Did you read my point #7 before answering... [I'll have to skip down to see] Oh, Ok, you were answering before reading the entire post. I find that sometimes is unhelpful. See my answer below to your response to #7. Basically, even if the verb is passive and God is the actor, there is no proof of a pre-creation appointment being necessary to this context, nor a conditional aspect assumed in that appointment, that is, the individuals must freely respond to it.

Comments on #5 Keith W. Thompson - Re: I already mentioned that "IF" the Gentiles appointed themselves to believe, then this is the only time out of 94 biblical usages of this lexeme, that a subject appointed themselves. (I do grant that it is grammatically "possible," but extremely unlikely.) In addition, IF Luke was trying to communicate, "all of the Gentiles who accepted themselves to eternal life believed,” WHY in the world would Luke communicate that idea by using this language? Do non-believers first "appoint" themselves to eternal life, and then as a result of this appointment believe? That seems very awkward and clunky... not to mention the implications that such an interpretation of this one verse would render to one’s soteriology specifically in reference to the order of salvation. October 25 at 1:56pm Brian H. Wagner - How can you boldly proclaim your conclusion "this is the only time out of 94" when you admitted not even looking closely at all OT instances, and you rejected the clear middle voice of Matt 28:16 and the reflexive action in 1Cor 16:15? Are you fingers in your ears, saying to yourself, "Do confuse me with the evidence, my mind is made up"? I showed how 5 of 8 NT references clearly had the reflexive idea associated in the context. That made the 9th instance not just possible, but probable. Again, you bias for "appoint" is not lexically supported. You too are answering before reading the entire paper. But let me illustrate. The Gentiles heard that they were being favored by God. I believe God was enlightening their hearts with this good news, but not irresistibly. And like the Jews at Pentecost they approached the apostles, got in line, wanting God's forgiveness and everlasting life, and made a profession of faith and were baptized. I can see them line up... can you? October 25 at 2:56pm Keith W. Thompson Brian H. Wagner - I just got to the part where you cited 1 Corinthians 16:15 Now I urge you, brothers, you know that the household of Stephanus were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints -

I stand corrected in that this IS an example of this root word being used to denote a subject "appointing" themselves to a particular relation with respect to others. I would point out though, that here, they are appointing themselves to a position of servility, rather than appointing themselves to a greater station. That is a very different idea from what you are arguing with regards to Acts 13:48... IN addition, in 1 Cor. 16, the word is in the ACTIVE voice, and NOT the middle or passive. If this is the idea that Luke wanted to communicate, the word would be ACTIVE in Acts 13:48... but it isn't. This is probably the most important question you need to deal with. Why is the word not in the active voice if your interpretation is correct? October 25 at 2:10pm Brian H. Wagner - In Greek, both the active voice with a reflexive pronoun or the middle voice by itself both express the same thing! It is just two different ways of expressing the same idea. October 25 at 3:13pm Keith W. Thompson - Yes, I admit that I did not look "closely" at all 94 usages of the word. Just a quick glance at each: (This is a Facebook dialogue, and not a journal article prepping for publication. ) And you are right, I missed 1 Cor. 16:15, where the word IS used reflexively (verse quoted below for convenience). 1 Cor. 16:15(b): "...the household of Stephanus were the first converts in Achaia, and that THEY HAVE DEVOTED THEMSELVES to the service of the saints -" But I would point out that in that verse (the ONLY "reflexive" usage of this word out of 94 in Scripture) is in the active voice, not the middle or passive. There is NO middle or passive usage of this word in the NT where the verb is reflexive. Secondly, consider what they were appointing themselves to. It was to appoint themselves to be servants toward others. They did NOT appoint themselves to a "higher" station, but rather a lower one! Your argument with regard to Acts 13:48, is arguing that the Gentiles appointed themselves to eternal life which is movement UP the ladder, not down, and THEN in light of their selfappointment to a higher station (which is unprecedented in Scripture) they believed as a RESULT of supposedly appointing themselves to eternal life. That rationale, even if it were

granted, leads to some serious soteriological problems. Namely, to appoint one's self to a "higher" position assumed that the actor has the authority to appoint himself to a higher position. Whenever someone appoints themselves to a station higher than their previous station, it is viewed as illegitimate. Again, this demonstrates that it is nearly impossible to accept your interpretation as valid, let alone correct. Also, do unbelievers appoint themselves unto eternal life, and THEN decide to believe in the gospel? Trying to defend that notion will only increase the improbability of your thesis. October 26 at 11:16am Keith W. Thompson - Re: And I responded to that claim. 1 of the 5 verses which you claim show this word being used reflexively does not even have the word we are discussing in the text at all! Three of the 4 remaining examples, are NOT examples of a reflexive use of this verb. If you want to dispute this, please interact with that argument in the sub-thread of that point below. October 26 at 11:19am Keith W. Thompson - Re: Are you saying that in these verses that the word can be argued to be "reflexive" (the subject is acting upon himself)? Matthew 8:9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my servant,(1 )'Do this,' and he does it." Where is the verb {tasso} in this verse? I think you assumed that the same word used in Lk. 7:8 is also used here, but it isn't...

Luke 7:8 For I too am a man SET under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." Are you trying to argue that this centurion appointed HIMSELF to be a subordinate in the Roman army? The natural reading of this verse seems to indicate that he was PLACED by someone else under authority. Acts 28:23 When they had APPOINTED a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. ... The day did not appoint itself. This is absolutely NOT "reflexive." Matthew 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had DIRECTED them. The disciples did NOT appoint to themselves to go to this mountain. Jesus appointed (directed) them to go there. Again, this is BLATENTLY not "reflexive." Bottom line, NONE of the verses you provided demonstrate this word being used reflexively, so this point is simply completely ungrounded. October 25 at 2:24pm Brian H. Wagner - Actually, all of them do, if you wouldn't be so hung up on the word "appoint" :-) and see the root idea of "set in order" or "arrange" as the better nuance. The Centurion, using the present participle, is telling Jesus that he arranges soldiers under him as he sees fit. Jesus arranged for a meeting for Himself and the apostles to meet. And so did the Jews with Paul. The indirect middle is a reflexive action "for the benefit of" of the subject, but not necessarily done to the subject directly. See Wallace, Grammar, p. 416f. October 25 at 3:24pm Keith W. Thompson - Re: ? It is a present PASSIVE participle... and the word is used here: Luke 7:8 - For I too am a man SET under authority, with soldiers under me... Meaning, "I too am a man {WHO HAS BEEN SET} under authority..."

NOT here: Luke 7:8 - For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers {SET} under me... October 25 at 3:49pm Brian H. Wagner - This is the point of discussion! Is the centurion emphasizing how he continually is arranged (passive) for assignments by those in authority over him, or is he emphasizing that he is continually arranging for himself (middle) assignments for men under his authority. The second seems to be the example the centurion is putting forth to Jesus as the one he wants Jesus to follow. October 25 at 4:33pm Keith W. Thompson - There are TWO phrases here. The FIRST phrase is where the word in question is being used. No centurion appoints himself to be over his men. I have a really difficult time seeing how this can be disputed. October 25 at 4:35pm Brian H. Wagner - He is "arranging for himself". I discussed the indirect middle - for the benefit of oneself, above. Do you have Wallace's grammar or another one that discusses the various uses of the middle voice? The present tense and the centurion's use of the example to influence Jesus is what make the middle voice the most likely. If the participle had been meant to be tied with the fact that he as a centurion is under authority, the perfect tense would be expected... "I am one who has been placed (has been appointed) under authority." But I do concede that it is grammatically possible that he is saying to Jesus, "I am constantly being appointed or arranged as one under authority." It takes away from the force of his argument, I feel. And even if those two verses fall into the passive voice category, there are still 4 of the 8 other uses of this verb that have a reflexive concept in their context. October 25 at 4:48pm Keith W. Thompson - Re: This is in reference to: Luke 7:8 For I too am a man SET under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant,

'Do this,' and he does it." (Word in CAPS is the word being discussed.) To say that it is "grammatically possible" for a Roman centurion to have "reflexively" set himself under the authority of his superior officers is one thing, but is semantic impossibility. Soldiers do not voluntarily choose to promote themselves, nor do they decide which of their superiors they place themselves under. This verse ought to be understood as, "Luke 7:8 For I too am a man [who has been placed] under authority, with soldiers [who have been placed] under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." The centurion's comments here are a simple acknowledgment of the chain of command. The greater authorities PLACE the lesser into their respective stations. That's simply how the world works, and the military example here is an OVERT example of this. I confess that I don't understand why it is that you think this takes away from the force of his argument. Looking just at the first phrase, "For I too am a man SET under authority..." He is likening himself to Jesus here, and stating that that he recognizes that like himself, Jesus is under the authority of the Father (economical not ontological). He is trying to relate to Jesus and to encourage Jesus to relate to his own plight, saying that he understands the nature of the chain of command. He is NOT saying, "Like you, I myself have designated myself as a subordinate to some, and as an authority to others." I honestly don't see how this particular argument of yours can be supported as likely. October 26 at 12:26pm

Comments on #6 Keith W. Thompson - Re: I would have to look at those passages in the Greek to be able to comment. But I suspect that since the word is being used for the direction of soldiers in battle that the soldiers themselves did not appoint their own battle formations, but were appointed by their superior officers.

October 25 at 2:27pm Brian H. Wagner - There is no doubt that the Gentiles that day knew it was the command of God for them to repent and trust in Him, but they responded by getting in line! October 25 at 3:24pm Keith W. Thompson - The ones who believed, sure. And yes, they did respond in belief... as many as had been APPOINTED to eternal life believed. (I'm not sure how your comment at all supports your conclusion.) October 25 at 3:53pm Brian H. Wagner - Not sure I can explain it better. They responded (arranged themselves in line) when they heard the Gospel which God had arranged for them to hear that day, but which is not the "arrangement" being talked about in this verse. That arrangement is mentioned in the previous verse when Paul said God's Word had promised the gospel for them. October 25 at 4:36pm Keith W. Thompson - With regard to this line of reasoning, again, I point out that I have not read the passage(s) from classical Greek to which you are referring. Yet even in the way you describe it, "...this same verb as a middle participle was used in Classical Greek of soldiers and ships getting in line..." seems likely to me to be yet another argument AGAINST the reflexive use. Ships and soldiers DO "get in line, "but it is because they were ordered to by their superiors. I can't say much more, seeing as how I haven't read the passages to which you are referring, but based upon the biblical usages of this word in all contexts esp. including military contexts, I question whether these passages at all support your interpretation of Acts 13:48. October 26 at 12:42pm

Comments on #7 Keith W. Thompson - Re: I'm glad to hear that you believe that my interpretation could possibly be grammatically "conceded," since it is nothing more than the clear straightforward reading of the verse. But you state this: I'm sorry, but the verse simply does NOT say anything close to this. The verse states that those appointed to eternal life believed. NOT the other way around. You seem to be arguing for the antithesis of the clear reading of the verse. October 25 at 2:30pm Brian H. Wagner - We're talking about people here, not robots or things being set in order or arranged. Luke's observation could very well be "as many as" Paul and Barnabas counseled in the Gospel, like Philip did with the Ethiopian treasurer, directly them to receive everlasting life through trusting Jesus alone, they all made that commitment of faith. But though that is grammatically possible, the context points to a more normal view of the grammar as all the actions being done by the Gentiles in contrast to those actions done by the Jews. October 25 at 3:29pm Keith W. Thompson - Re: