Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
This passage is often used by Calvinists to support unconditional election. They cite it as evidence that predestination is the efficient cause of faith, so faith cannot be a preceding condition for predestination. They interpret ordained as “ordained by God”, and ordaining as an appointment or decree from eternity.
Based on the King James Version’s (KJV) translation, one
might be able to see where they are coming from. Who, other then God, can ordain someone to
eternal life? This implication is not in
the KJV alone. Consider the English
Standard Version (ESV): “and as many as were
appointed to eternal life believed.”
Either ordained or appointed seem to imply that God is the Appointer.
John Calvin makes several cogent
points in his commentary. First, he
shows that the number that believed is restricted to those ordained to eternal
life. “And here we must note the restraint,
[reservation,] when he saith that they believed,
(but) not all in general, but those who were ordained unto life.” Then Calvin dismisses an alternative
explanation: “For it is a ridiculous cavil to refer
this unto the affection of those which believed, as if those received the
gospel whose minds were well-disposed.”
He then points out the difference in election as the cause of faith per
say, verse election as a remote but sure cause of faith: “Neither
doth Luke say that they were ordained unto faith, but unto life; because the
Lord doth predestinate his unto the inheritance of eternal life. And this place
teacheth that faith dependeth
upon God's election.” And he points out
that the intervening cause is the Holy Spirits inward, effectual call:
“though our heavenly Father inviteth all men unto the faith by the external voice of
man, yet doth he not call effectually by
his Spirit any save those whom he hath determined to save.” Yet because the Father’s election is the
cause of the effectual call of the Spirit, and the Spirit’s call effectually
causes faith, election is properly called the cause of faith: “Now,
if God's election, whereby he ordaineth us unto life,
be the cause of faith and salvation, there remaineth
nothing for worthiness or merits.”
And such a call is necessary, because of our inability due to the fall: “And
assuredly, seeing that the whole race of mankind is blind and stubborn, those
diseases stick fast in our nature until they be
redressed by the grace of the Spirit, and that redressing floweth
from the fountain of election alone. For in that of two which hear the same
doctrine together, the one showeth himself apt to be
taught, the other continueth in his obstinacy. It is
not, therefore, because they differ by nature, but because God doth lighten
[illumine] the former, and doth not vouchsafe the other the like grace”. So the opinion that man’s faith causes
election is incorrect for two reasons: 1) man cannot without effectual calling
have faith, and 2) election causes faith, not faith election.
The
above quotes from Calvin’s commentary on Acts 13:48 were taken from: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol36/htm/xx.x.htm
These seem like sold arguments that require attention. Consider the problem this creates for Arminius explanation of election. Arminius broke the decrees of predestination into 4 logically sequential steps:
“1. The
first absolute decree of God concerning the salvation of sinful man, is that by
which he decreed to appoint his Son, Jesus Christ, for a Mediator, Redeemer,
Savior, Priest and King, who might destroy sin by his own death, might by his
obedience obtain the salvation which had been lost, and might communicate it by
his own virtue.
2. The
second precise and absolute decree of God, is that in which he decreed to
receive into favor those who repent and believe, and, in Christ, for his sake
and through Him, to effect the salvation of such penitents and believers as
persevered to the end; but to leave in sin, and under wrath, all impenitent
persons and unbelievers, and to damn them as aliens from Christ.
3. The third
Divine decree is that by which God decreed to administer in a sufficient and
efficacious manner the means which were necessary for repentance and faith; and
to have such administration instituted
(1.) according to the Divine Wisdom, by which God knows what is
proper and becoming both to his mercy and his severity, and
(2.) according to Divine Justice, by which He is prepared to
adopt whatever his wisdom may prescribe and put it in execution.
4. To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to
save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the
foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who
would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace
would persevere, according to the before described administration of those
means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which
foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.”
http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/arminius/f.htm#I.%20ON%20PREDESTINATION
When speaking of election,
Arminius typically referred to either decree number 2 (God’s choice that faith
would be the means of salvation) or decree number 4 (based on foreknowing who
would believe, God chose to save individuals).
Consider the way Arminius parses 2
and 4 below:
“Which is first, Election, or Faith Truly Foreseen, so that
God elected his people according to faith foreseen?
The equivocation in the word "Election," makes it
impossible to answer this question in any other manner, than by distinction. If therefore "Election" denotes "the decree which is
according to election concerning the justification and salvation of
believers." I say Election is prior to Faith, as being that by
which Faith is appointed as the means of obtaining salvation. But if it
signifies "the decree by which God determines to bestow salvation on some
one," then Faith foreseen is prior to Election. For as
believers alone are saved, so only believers are predestinated to salvation.
But the Scriptures know no Election, by which God precisely and absolutely has
determined to save anyone without having first considered him as a believer.
For such an Election would be at variance with the decree by which he hath
determined to save none but believers.”
Herein is the problem. The passage is clearly talking about individuals, not just the means by which individuals are saved. (“as many as were ordained”) So the passage is clearly not talking about the second decree (ie God choosing faith as the means of salvation). Nor does the passage at first seem conducive with the fourth decree. For although the forth decree is of eternal life of individuals, it places faith foreseen as its foundation. But, as Calvin noted, the passage places election as the foundation of belief, not belief the foundation of election. So it would seem the Arminian model of election is overthrown.
However, the fourth decree is commonly misunderstood and requires a closer look. I believe an accurate understanding of the fourth decree is compatible with the verse.
The first and most common misunderstanding of the fourth decree is that God sees the future and then decrees it. So predestination becomes a sort of divine rubber stamp. The problem with this view is that logically speaking, predestination is “too late”. The future is already settled by the time God knows it, so God’s predestining the future doesn’t effect it.
The second misunderstanding of the fourth decree is that God foresees all future events up till the point where an individual believes and then predestines the events from that point forward. This explanation avoids the logical loop problems of the first and provides for “real world” impacts of predestination. But they are only after the point of belief. So predestination might have implication on perseverance, but not conversion. This is closer, but not exactly what Arminius is saying.
Here is decree 4 again:
“To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed
to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in
the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals
who would, through his preventing
grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration
of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by
which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.”
The decree is not founded based on those who will believe, but those who would believe. Nor is the decree related to belief alone, but belief and perseverance. The difference between will and would in this case is the difference between middle and free knowledge.
The scholastics divided God’s knowledge into three groups, natural, middle and free. Natural knowledge is the knowledge of all possibilities (ie what could happen). Free knowledge is the knowledge of the future (ie what will happen). Logically speaking, in between nature and free knowledge are both middle knowledge and predestination. Middle knowledge is the knowledge of what would happen, given any hypothesis. So based on X circumstance, Y would happen. No X, no Y, but with X, Y. Y includes even the free choices of God’s rational creatures. So in this case, God knew, if I call the gentiles under these circumstances, they would freely respond, but if I do not call them, they would not respond. Not that they had to respond, or that X makes Y necessary, but that they would freely respond. Predestination is the decree to implement X. It comes logically after middle knowledge, but before free knowledge (or knowledge of the future).
So decree four may be summarized that based on middle knowledge, God knows who would freely respond under certain circumstances and that knowledge is the foundation of God’s choice to give eternal life to those individuals. As it relates to the verse, God knew certain individual gentiles would freely choice to respond to the message under those specific circumstances, so God chose to save them by decreeing their salvation and the circumstances.
This explanation is compatible with the text. But Calvin’s explanation goes beyond this one to say that the verse implies a mediate cause, and not just that a mediate cause is implied, but the nature of the mediate cause is implied to be efficient. That is to say that the Holy Spirit will efficiently cause their conversion.
Before we continue, it should be noted that much of what Calvin says is not unique to his view. The inability of man to believe is often cited by Arminius and the Remonstrants. The third point of the 5 points of the remonstrant was man’s inability:
“That man has not
saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in
the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor
do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it
is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and
renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order
that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good,
according to the word of Christ, John xv. b: Without
me ye can do nothing.”
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.vii.cliii.htm
So Calvin’s points about man’s depravity and inability without grace are non-unique.
Further, Calvin’s point about God’s grace being the cause of our conversion are non-unique. Notice how Calvin uses the word effectual (actually effective) and Episcopius (leader of the Remonstrants after Calvin’s death) uses the word efficacious (able to effect).
“Efficacious grace, by
which any man is converted, is not irresistible: and though God so affects the
will of man by his word and the inward operation of his Spirit, as to confer
upon him a capability of believing, or supernatural power, and actually causes
man to believe; yet man is of himself capable to spurn and reject this grace,
and not believe; and, therefore, also, to perish through his own culpability.”
http://chi.gospelcom.net/pastwords/chl050.shtml
That the Spirit’s call causes faith is not unique to Calvin’s explanation, but that the Spirit’s call is the sufficient cause of faith is unique.
But does the verse teach that the Spirit’s call is the sufficient cause of faith? It must be mentioned that the Spirit’s call is only implied and not directly discussed. But the cause of a cause is the cause of the effect. So if the Father’s predestination is the sufficient cause of the Spirit’s call, and Spirit’s call is the sufficient cause of faith, then it is fair to call the Father’s predestination the sufficient cause of faith. The verse does say that as many as were ordained to eternal life believe, which states that all and only those that were ordained believed. But just because belief follows being ordained, does not make ordination the sufficient cause. That would be the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo poster hoc.
An efficient causal relationship is not the only explanation of why all and only those who were ordained, believed. The reason why all and only those who were ordained believed is not based on the mediate cause’s sufficiency in producing its effect. Rather, the reason is founded on God’s middle knowledge. If God knew that under circumstance X, Y would occur and He chooses to bring about X, Y does in fact occur. God knew that the Gentiles would believe if called, and He chose to call them, so they did believe. He might have known that they would not all respond to the call, but in this case they would respond.
As opposed to the Calvinist view, the Arminian view is that not everyone that day did respond to the call of the Holy Spirit. All the gentiles that glorified the word of the Lord did respond as the passage says. But the Jews were also called. Notice the language Paul uses to describe the Jew’s reaction: “but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life”. There rejection of the message was a witness against themselves. Such sharp rejection wasn’t in ignorance of something they didn’t understand, but willful rejection. So the passage isn’t saying the Spirit’s call is the sufficient cause of faith. There is another reason (middle knowledge) why all and only those predestined believed.
The above explanation was given as if no other interpretation could be given to the verse other then a divine decree of predestination. I chose to give this interpretation first, because most major translations do seem to convey this sense. However, I find the Greek ambiguous as to whether this is the correct sense or not. The phrase in Greek is: και επιστευσαν οσοι ησαν τεταγμενοι εις ζωην αιωνιον (and believed as many as were ordained into life eternal). The clause “as many as were ordained” is the subject of the verb believed. So this cannot be read as “as many as believed were ordained to eternal life”. However, the word in question in my mind is τεταγμενοι (tasso).
Tasso isn’t typically translated ordained in the sense of predestination. In fact, this would be the only such use of tasso in that sense out of the eight New Testament uses and 65 Old Testament (using the Septuagint) uses. Further, tasso is in the pluperfect, which would be a strange tense for predestination. Pluperfects indicate a past event, that may or may not have lasting results. One would expect something more definitive, like an aorist or perfect tense for predestination.
A translation of ordain in the sense of arrange would be a more common use. Tasso can be translated as “appointment”, which might carry the connotation of predestination. So I am not saying the above translation is unallowable. However, this isn’t the only possible translation.
Tasso can also mean devoted, as is
the case in 1 Corinthians 16:15 “they have devoted themselves for ministry to
the saints”. In extra-biblical sources,
soldiers devoted themselves to military service. Eis ten douleian emauton
tatto. (Mem 2 1, 11) & tattein eauton epi ten diakonian tauten (Pla. Rep. 2 p.
371c) Now if we
translate the passage as many as were devoted to eternal life believed, we get
a very different meaning.
The word tasso is in the perfect middle/passive
participle. It may be either understood
as middle (the action is performed by the subject for himself) or passive (the
action is performed on the subject).
Context, not grammar, is used to determine if middle/passives are either
middle or passive. If ordained is chosen
as a translation, particularly in the sense of predestined, the verb is
passive. No one predestines
themselves. But one can devote oneself,
so the verb could be middle.
At this point one might object
that “as many as were devoted” is passive.
It is passive in English, but perhaps not in Greek. Sometimes, middle voice in Greek is
translated as passive in English. The
English passive voice is often unclear, which is why English grammar teachers
prefer the active voice to the passive.
Consider this excerpt from a grammar site:
“The primary reason why your instructors frown on the
passive voice is that they often have to guess what you mean. Sometimes, the
confusion is minor. Let's look again at that sentence from a student's paper on
Homer's The Odyssey:
When her house was invaded, Penelope had to think of ways
to delay her remarriage.
Like many passive constructions, this sentence lacks
explicit reference to the actor--it doesn't tell the reader who or what
invaded. The active voice clarifies:
After suitors invaded Penelope's house, she had to think of
ways to fend them off.
Thus many instructors--the readers making sense of your
writing--prefer that you use the active voice, that
you specify who or what is doing the action….”
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/passivevoice.html
Now consider Mark 1:6: “John was clothed with camel's hair”. The construction to Acts 13:48 is identical. John-was-clothed: as many as-were-devoted. Both phrases are passive in English. But in Greek, Mark 1:6 is understood to be middle voice, not passive. This is an implied direct reflexive (ie John clothed himself). The same implied direct reflexive could be the case in Acts 13:48 (ie as many as devoted themselves).
Tasso can be uses in the middle voice. In fact, the Septuagent never uses tasso in the passive voice, as it always selects the middle or active. Here are some examples of middle uses of tasso:
Ex 8:12 And Moses and Aaron went
out from Pharaoh: and Moses cried unto the LORD because of the frogs which he
had brought against Pharaoh.
1 Sam 29:35 And
it came to pass in the morning, that Jonathan went out into the field at the
time appointed with David, and a little lad with him.
2 Sam 20:5 but he tarried longer than the set time which he had appointed him.
Ex 8:9 And Moses said unto
Pharaoh, Glory over me: when shall I
intreat for thee, and for thy servants, and for thy
people, to destroy the frogs from thee and thy houses, that
they may remain in the river only?
Ex 29:43 And
there I will meet with the children
of
Is 38:1 In
those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set
thine house in order: for thou shalt
die, and not live.
Act 28:23 …And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging
Mat 28:16
Then the eleven disciples went away into
Not only is tasso often used in middle voice, but it can be uses reflexively also. Here are some examples of reflexive uses for tasso:
Eze 44:5 And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes… (literally, set your heart)
Zec 7:12 Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone
Hag 1:5 Now therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways. (literally, set your heart)
Hag 2:18 Consider now from this day and upward (literally, set your heart)
1 Corinthians 16:15 “they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints”
The idea behind the reflexive uses of tasso is a firm decision or resolution.
At this point someone might point out that yes it can be translated devoted, and yes it can be middle voice, and yes it can be reflexive, but if it’s reflexive it would have the reflexive pronoun “themselves” or their heart or some other synecdoche. It is true that none of the uses of tasso, other then perhaps this one, are middle direct reflexive. So in that sense this reading is somewhat unique. But this is the only use of tasso that is a periphrastic pluperfect. Perhaps if we had more uses of tasso to examine, we might discover more, but of the few cases we have to examine, this one stands alone.
In Greek, when you join a perfect participle with an imperfect “to be” verb you get a periphrastic pluperfect. In this verse ησαν is an imperfect to be verb and τεταγμενοι is a perfect participle. Pluperfects have there actions in the past, but the results may or may not last up till the time of the main verb. Periphrastic constructions are round about ways of saying something simple.
Periphrastic constructions often have implied actors or objects of action. Consider Luke 4:16: “where he had been brought up”, with an implied: “where his parents brought him up.” Now, whether you go with a passive ordained or a middle devoted, you have an implied component. The passive translation is really “as many as were ordained by God”. The middle direct reflexive translation is “as many as were devoted by themselves”. Either way something is implied and not stated. So the complaint isn’t a general, “no implied actors”, but a specific “no implied reflexive actors”.
But looking at Mark 1:6 again, we can see an example of a periphrastic pluperfect, which is middle with an implied direct reflexive. Mark 1:6: “John was clothed with camel's hair” which is an implied “John was clothed by himself”. So even though it’s true that this would be the only case in which tasso is a periphrastic pluperfect middle implied direct reflexive, we can see that other verbs besides tasso are used that way. The two closest examples for this understanding of tasso are from the same author, Luke in the same book, Acts. In Acts 18:16 we find αντιτασσομενων which is an implied direct reflexive “opposed themselves” in the KJV. Here, as in Acts 13:48, the reflexive pronoun is implied and not stated. In Acts 20:13 we find ην διατεταγμενος which is a periphrastic pluperfect, which, just like Acts 13:48, is understood to be in the middle voice not the passive voice. So even thought the translation “as many as were ordained to eternal life” is legitimate, it does not seem like that is the only alternative and the passage could read “as may as were devoted to eternal life”.
Indeed, the latter translation matches the context better then the former in three important respects. First, the timing for pluperfects are derived from their contexts. In this context, we have the Gentiles hearing the gospel and receiving it with gladness. This defines the timing of the pluperfect. A reference to predestination isn’t based on the context. That would be more of an aside, outside the historical narrative. Second, I find that verse 48 and 46 parallel each other. “they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were devoted to eternal life” from verse 48 corresponds to verses 46 “but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life”. Both are direct reflexives, but they are mirror image opposites. Last, tasso would be an unusual word in an usual tense, to convey predestination. Προορίζω (proorizo) in the aorist or perfect would be more common, and this would be the only case in which both tasso and a pluperfect was used to describe predestination.
So although the passage may be explained as concerning predestination from an Arminian viewpoint, the alternative explanation is preferable.