Introductory Remarks
The verse reads,
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:18, ESV)
With respect to the interpretive issues of divine sovereignty, election, predestination, etc., raised by Acts 13:48, we should note from the outset that non-Calvinists recognize that Luke presents the establishment and expansion of the Christian church as the sovereign work of God. That is, regarding Luke’s account in Acts, it is to be emphatically stated that the spread of the gospel and the expansion of the church are the direct result of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is sufficient to say that in the NIV and CSB versions the “Holy Spirit” is mentioned forty-two times! The point is that the particulars as to the geographical areas into which this expansion occurs and to whom this message is brought are according to the plans and purposes of God. That is clear from the whole of the book of Acts. Biblical scholars Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart tell us that there is a sense of “movement” in the book of Acts.
“You will notice that as you read that at every key juncture, in every key person, the Holy Spirit plays the absolutely leading role. According to Luke, all of this forward movement did not happen by man’s design: it happened because God willed it and the Holy Spirit carried it out.”[1]
But should we conclude from this that a comprehensive salvific determinism is at work here, defined as everyone’s salvation being predestined, that is, either to eternal life or eternal damnation? Should we conclude that Luke’s intent in Acts 13:48 was to teach or affirm the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election or predestination? Let us be sure to observe that even though the advance of the gospel was under divine direction, it was the advance of the gospel. I have stated repeatedly that the Calvinists’ definition of God’s sovereignty as universal divine causal determinism is antithetical to the definition of the gospel as “good news.” The gospel is “good news” and always is “good news” to whoever hears it. There is no hidden divine agenda of predestination behind the proclamation or hearing of the message of salvation in Christ Jesus. There is no additional “effectual call” within the external call of the gospel to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. The message is true for all. It is sincerely offered by the God of truth to all. Therefore, we should not expect Luke to record Paul, who is the great proclaimer and defender of the “good news,” as promoting or teaching the deterministic “doctrines of grace” that are antithetical to that message. It is the Calvinist who is prone to interpret the text anachronistically through his own theology when he reads words like “sovereignty,” “ordain,” “predestined,” “elect,” and here in Acts 13:48, “appointed.” But these words should be understood in their biblical contexts, not in the context of the sixteenth-century conflict between Roman Catholic “works” and the Protestant Reformers’ emphasis on “faith.” Add to this the fact that the dynamics of faith and unbelief throughout Acts and all of scripture are the responsibility of the individual, as is perfectly clear in Acts 13:46, and the Calvinists’ doctrines can find no support here or anywhere else in the Bible. Moreover, the theme of the progress of the message of “eternal life” from its Jewish beginnings to Gentile inclusion also provides us with a biblical definition of God’s “sovereignty,” which does not mean “universal divine causal determinism” as required in Calvinism. More on this later.
Salvation History
In a separate section in this chapter 16 on election, I provided a survey of Old Testament history. The history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the establishment of the nation of Israel as the result of God’s election are essential for rightly understanding the historical context of the New Testament. Jesus was the fulfillment of God’s revelation to Israel throughout the Old Testament. God was revealing to Israel his salvific will, which was to be fulfilled in the Messiah. God was the God of Israel, and the Jews believed their Messiah was to come to lead Israel to freedom from their enemies, who at this point were the Romans. Because God established Israel and called them to be his own people, the Jews, therefore, understood themselves as the elect or as the chosen people of God. Indeed, they were historically and nationally the people of God. But in time, they developed an isolationist and exclusionary attitude regarding their association with the Gentiles, i.e., non-Jews. Therefore, the biblical, historical, and theological context of Acts 13:48 involves the nature of God’s purposes for Israel in relation to their own salvation and the salvation of the Gentiles.
Luke, who is a Gentile, has recorded in his gospel for his Gentile friend, Theophilus, “all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.” (Acts 1:1-2. ESV) So we can already sense that Luke’s concern will be the mission to the Gentiles. Jesus said to his disciples,
“These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. He also said to them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead the third day, and repentance for forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. As for you, stay in the city until you are empowered from on high.” (Luke 24:44-49, CSB)
Note Jesus’ words regarding the ultimate scope for the proclamation of the gospel. It is “to all the nations.” In Acts, we read of the transition of the evangelistic proclamation of salvation in Jesus Christ, as empowered by the Holy Spirit, from the time of Jesus’ ascension and its exclusively Jewish beginnings in Jerusalem to its expansion into the Gentile world. Without this understanding of Luke’s purpose in writing, the book of Acts cannot be rightly interpreted. So, in Acts chapter 1, we read,
“While he [Jesus] was with them, he commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for the Father’s promise. “Which,” he said, “you have heard me speak about; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a few days.”
So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come on you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:4-8, CSB)
Note that in this early period, the disciples were told what would come to pass from the Scripture, which Jesus “opened their minds to understand.” He already predicted his suffering, death, and resurrection, which would provide forgiveness for sins. He also told them that they were his “witnesses of these things” and that they would “proclaim” the message of “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” “in his name to all the nations,” that is, “to the ends of the earth.” Hence, we have from Jesus himself the intention that the gospel would not only be for the Jews, who were to hear it first, but also for all the Gentiles.
Therefore, the expansion of the gospel out of its Jewish roots and context into the Gentile world is an important theme, if not Luke’s main purpose, in the Book of Acts. Hence, it must be noted that in relation to this theme of the expansion of the gospel, “believe” is mentioned 38 times in the CSB and a form of “believe(s)” 60 times in the NIV. Note that “the gospel” is mentioned 7 times in the NIV, and the phrase “eternal life” (ζωὴν αἰώνιον, lit. “life eternal”) is mentioned only twice in Acts, and both are found in our disputed text in 13:46 and 48.
Luke records the expansion of this message of “repentance for forgiveness of sins” in the name of Jesus as the work of the Spirit from its Jewish beginnings with the apostles and the primitive Jerusalem church (2:36, 39; 3:12,25-26; 4:4, 8-12; 5:14; 6:7) through its further geographical expansions into Judea and Samaria (8:4-5. 40; 9:31) and then the Gentile world. He first focuses on the conversion of Cornelius (ch. 10, esp. 43, 45; 11:1, 12, 14, 18, 19, 27). This key text cannot be overestimated in its importance in changing the mindset of the Jews towards the Gentiles regarding their salvation. Peter, Paul, and Barnabas all testified at the later Jerusalem Council, where the matter of salvation by faith was established against those Pharisees who maintained that unless the Gentiles were circumcised and kept the law of Moses, they could not be saved (Acts 15:1, 5). After this, Luke and Paul travel into Asia Minor (ch.14, esp. 14:27; ch.15, esp. 7-9, 14; ch.16, esp. 30-31; ch.18; ch.19 esp. 19:10; ch.20), Greece, (chs.16, esp. 6-10; ch.18; ch.20, esp. 20:21), back to Jerusalem (21:19), and after being brought before the high priest Ananias and the council of the Jews who tried to kill Paul (22:30-23:22), he went before Felix (23:23-24:27), then Festus (24:22-25:12) and King Agrippa (25:13-26:32), and then finally to Rome (27:1-28:31). These geographical expansions highlight God’s plan to include the Gentiles in salvation while also reading about the Jews who consistently rejected the gospel and persecuted Paul and his companions. This Jewish persecution and Gentile expansion is the pattern throughout Acts. But this resistance and rejection of the gospel by the Jews did not stop its proclamation. The expansion of the gospel message into the Gentile world, reaching the highest levels of Roman government, is what Luke wants us to understand from his account in Acts. He records the historical and theological dynamics between the Jews as God’s elect people who, for the most part, spurned the gospel, and the Gentiles as those who were not among the elect yet received the “good news” of their salvation with gladness.
Therefore, we must beware of imposing the presuppositions of our own theological traditions upon the text – whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist. What questions should we be asking of the text? Should we even limit our inquiry into the text with the question, “Does Acts 13:48 teach unconditional election?” Or should we be asking, “What does Luke intend to say in this verse given his choice of words, grammar, and the contexts, along with his historical and theological themes and purposes for writing the book of Acts?” I submit that this second question is more hermeneutically appropriate. I will do my best to answer it.
Therefore, my approach will be to treat the verse according to the following broad categories: 1) examine the grammatical and definitional issues of the verse, 2) examine the broader context of the Book of Acts, 3) examine its immediate context in the surrounding verses and chapters, 4) consider legitimate translation theories of the verse, 5) survey the nature of divine sovereignty and apostacy in Acts, 6) come to an interpretation of the verse, and 7) offer concluding remarks.
A Grammatical Analysis of Acts 13:48
This verse raises several grammatical issues that need careful consideration. As difficult as the grammar may be, I believe some sustained effort will disclose the most plausible interpretation of this elusive and controversial text. Acts 13:48 reads,
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” (ESV)
Here’s the Greek Text from the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature).
48 ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου
[And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord]
καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν
and they believed as many as they were
[Aor. Act. Ind. 3rd Pl.] [Rel. Pron. Corr., Nom. Pl. Masc.] [Imperf. Act, Ind.]
τεταγμένοι
appointed
[Periphrastic, Past Perf., Pass/Mid., Indic., Nom., Part.]
εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον·
to eternal life.
[Prepositional Phrase]
Here are the major parts of speech in our text.
“Believed” = Main Verb. “to believe, trust, put faith in.” Aorist, active, indicative, 3rd person, plural.
“as many as” = Relative Pronoun. Quantitative, Correlative, nominative, plural, masculine.
“they were” = Verb. “to be, exist, happen.” Imperfect, active, indicative, 3rd person, plural.
“appointed” Gk. Τεταγμένοι from tasso (draw up, arrange, assign, dispose). Periphrastic, Past-perfect (or Pluperfect), Middle or Passive, Indicative, Nom., Masc., Pl., Participle (Luke uses tasso or cognates in 10:33; 10:48; 15:2; 17:26; 18:2; 22:10.)
In Greek, the word order is flexible. Thus, an author may put the words he wants to stress first in the sentence or clause. In v. 48, “they believed” is first in the word order, and therefore we can safely assume that Luke wants to emphasize faith or believing in a significant way. This is the main verb in the sentence.
The relative pronoun ὅσοι, “as many as,” must refer to a nominal antecedent, which in this case is ἦσαν τεταγμένοι (“had been appointed,” or however else tetagmenoi may be interpreted with its various definitions). Grammatically, it cannot refer backwards to the verb ἐπίστευσαν (“believed”) even though it is the main verb. So, the interpretation “…and as many as believed were appointed to eternal life” is grammatically incorrect. It is not an interpretive option. Therefore, the literal interpretation is: “… and they believed as many as they were appointed to eternal life.”
Furthermore, this correlative relative pronoun, “as many as,” designates the Gentiles as a group, but not all the Gentiles, only those who fit the description of “appointed to eternal life.” So, Luke’s grammar requires at least what we find in most English versions: “… and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
Nevertheless, we can conclude that word order is important here. Also, the verse begins with Luke reporting the Gentiles’ gladness and rejoicing at the news that the gospel would be brought to them. And we immediately see their response of faith. Again, this stands in stark contrast with the lack of faith of the Jews. Indeed, they are even condemned by their own unbelief (13:45, 50; 14:2) because ultimately Paul and Barnabas “shook the dust off their feet against them…” (13:51, ESV). This was a symbolic act of judgment, warning, and release from responsibility toward those who reject God’s message. (see also Matt. 10:14-15, Mk. 6:11, Lu. 10:11). Of special interest and application to our text is the idea of “shake the dust off your feet,” which meant that these people were now to be considered as “outsiders,” spiritually unclean, like those in Gentile territory. Devout Jews returning from Gentile lands would shake off foreign dust so they would not “pollute” Israel with pagan soil. Jesus, Paul, and Barnabas repurpose this custom inside Israel itself or to the Jews in their synagogue (Acts 13:14), signaling that rejecting the gospel places even the covenant people, the elect, in the same category as unbelieving pagans. This reversal of roles and responses among the Jews and the Gentiles to the gospel is precisely what occurred in the context of Acts 13:48. We have to appreciate the historical and theological context of the attitude of the Jews towards the Gentiles to properly interpret this text. We are beginning to see what this “appointment” means in light of the disposition of the Gentiles to joyfully embrace the gospel, let alone that Paul and Barnabas would proclaim it to them as Jews. With this contextual information, we can appreciate what it meant to bring the gospel to the Gentiles within this attitude of division created by the Jews against them.
So far, there is no unconditional election or predestination intended here. Luke could have been clear on that point if that is what he meant to communicate, or better yet, Paul could have, and should have, elaborated on the “Calvinist” doctrines somewhere in Acts if that was the truth about salvation. But so far, what is happening in this account is not interpreted deterministically by Paul or Luke. Rather, the opposite is true, as is made clear by verse 46. Luke uses the word τεταγμένοι (tetagmenoi), which not only has several legitimate meanings but may also be translated in the middle voice. More on this later.
Interestingly, God is not mentioned in this verse, but divine activity would be suggested by interpreting τεταγμένοι in the passive voice. This would support the Calvinist idea of God “appointing” certain people to eternal life, and that is why they believed. But we must note that there is no mention, nor sense, of this “appointment” being “unconditional.”
Luke’s use of the pluperfect or past perfect tense (τεταγμένοι) indicates that the “appointment” of those who believed was completed in the past, with its results continuing into the present time. They were already in the condition of having been “appointed to eternal life” when they believed.
Also, the periphrastic participle (the participle τεταγμένοι used in conjunction with the verb ἦσαν) emphasizes the resultant state of a prior “τεταγμένοι” (i.e., “appointment” or “disposition”) to eternal life. Luke is making the following grammatical points in the strongest way possible in Koine Greek.
- The state of being “τεταγμένοι,” not the event of τεταγμένοι.
- The prior action of “τεταγμένοι” is completed, not at the moment of believing.
- The ongoing condition of τεταγμένοι results in a state that existed when they believed, not a new appointment.
Therefore, this is a state of being completed prior to the time of the main verb, and whose results continue into that time.
Dana & Mantey Help with the Grammar of Acts 13:48
You may have concluded from the above that the grammar of the sentence is a challenge to unravel. You would be right! The definition of τεταγμένοι with its pluperfect tense and being in periphrastic relationship with ἦσαν, which is in the imperfect tense, makes for a complicated exegesis. This makes me think we may be dealing with a syntactical issue here, that is, the unique way Luke thought about the matters at hand and expressed them in this verse. It would be an interesting study to examine the ways Luke describes the reception or rejection of the gospel throughout Acts.
In their Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey explain that,
“Syntax is the process of analyzing and classifying the modes of expression presented by a language. It does not govern language; it deals with the facts of language as they are found…syntax deals essentially with the forms which thought may take in the process of expression. So we discover that grammar and psychology are twin sciences.”[2]
“The idea that syntax is a formulation of rules for correct speech is an erroneous notion. Syntax is the process of analyzing and classifying the modes of expression presented by a language. It does not govern language; it deals with the facts of language as they are found. Hence, we are now to study the history and aspects of linguistic phenomena as they appear in the Greek text of the New Testament. “The scientific grammar is at bottom a grammatical history, and not a linguistic law-book. The seat of authority in language is therefore not in the books about language, but the people who use the language.”’[3]
“Nothing is more important in the study of syntax than securing an adequate idea of its scope and nature. This is a point which has been hurtfully neglected. Too often in the study of the grammar of a language the student has gone into the field of syntax with no consciousness more than that he has passed to a new heading of the general subject under consideration. And as he proceeded he has known only that he was reviewing an array of facts – or “rules” – with varying significance. He has not thought sufficiently about the fundamental reasons for these facts, and their consequent relations to one another. His task is too often thought of as memorizing a list or arbitrary “rules of grammar.” This attitude totally misapprehends the true nature of syntax.”[4]
This advice applies to our text, and we will have to do justice to syntax by a careful examination of context. In my study of Josh Howerton’s treatment of Acts 18:10, part 1 and part 2, I have already fully examined the verse in context and demonstrated why Howerton’s interpretation was not only incoherent but also failed to do justice to the text. We saw that Acts 18:10 was best interpreted within the context of the disposition of those Gentiles who were God-fearing, worshippers of God, devout proselytes to Judaism, etc., and some Jews who responded positively to Jesus in Luke’s gospel (cf. Lu. 7:1-10). But for the most part, in Acts, the Jews were recalcitrant and the Gentiles receptive to the preaching of the gospel (10:1-48, cf. 18:10). Dana and Mantey’s words deserve serious consideration so we can properly interpret Acts 13:48.
The Importance and Contribution of the Tenses
Regarding the Greek tenses, Dana and Mantey write,
“No element of the Greek language is of more importance to the student of the New Testament than the matter of tense. A variation in meaning exhibited by the use of a particular tense will often dissolve what appears to be an embarrassing difficulty, or reveal a gleam of truth which will thrill the heart with delight and inspiration. Though it is an intricate and difficult subject, no phase of Greek grammar offers a fuller reward. The benefits are to be reaped only when one has invested sufficient time and diligence to obtain an insight into the idiomatic use of tense in the Greek language and an appreciation of the finer distinctions in force.”[5]
“The use of the tense cannot be determined by the English rendering: that matter is to be discerned by a close scrutiny of the context and a discriminating apprehension of the essential force of the tense.”[6]
“It is certainly unsafe, however, to proceed upon any supposition other than that the New Testament writer used the tense which would convey just the idea he wished to express. This is the rule, and all seeming exceptions are to be regarded with doubt.”[7]
“The other elements entering into the resultant import of the present tense are the meaning of the verb itself and the general significance of the context. That is, in dealing with the present tense we must consider not only the fundamental force of the tense, but also the meaning of the verb root, and the significance of the context…These same three factors are to be considered in dealing with all the other tenses. Sometimes one, sometimes two, or all three, exert an influence.”[8]
Note the 3 references to context in these instructions and the emphasis on the meaning or definition of the verbs in the sentence. These are essential hermeneutical principles that we will have to employ to rightly interpret Acts 13:48. And finally, Dana and Mantey state,
“Tense deals with two aspects of verbal expression, kind of action being the chief idea involved, for time is but a minor consideration in the Greek tenses…The important element of tense in Greek is kind of action. This is its fundamental significance. “The chief function of a Greek tense is thus not to denote time, but progress.”[9]
Note that these concerns apply to all tenses. Therefore, we must attend to a) the fundamental force of the tense, b) the meaning of the verb root (in this case, tetagmenoi), and c) the significance of context.
With these things in mind, let’s begin with the verse’s technical grammatical and definitional data. Recall the advice of Dana and Mantey when they write, “The use of the tense cannot be determined by the English rendering: that matter is to be discerned by a close scrutiny of the context and a discriminating apprehension of the essential force of the tense.”[10]
We should note, therefore, that the participle τεταγμένοι (“appointed”) is in the pluperfect tense and the verb ἦσαν (“they were”) in the imperfect tense; as such, they are also in a periphrastic relationship. This relationship emphasizes a state that existed continually in the past. This can be translated as “they were in a state of having been appointed” (the better definition of the word I will consider later). This may relate to God’s continual intention to save the Gentiles. From Old Testament times, or even from eternity past, the Gentiles were also “appointed” by God to eternal life, that is, to hear the gospel. This divine intention is made clear in Paul’s quoting Isa. 49:6. More on this later. The main verb, ἐπίστευσαν (“they believed”), is in the aorist tense, which is the tense of low information. Yet, being first in position in the sentence, it gets the emphasis.
Two things to note. One is that Luke is referring to the Gentiles as a group. The other is that salvation, whatever the definition of tasso (tetagmenoi), is never apart from a person’s response of faith, given what the Bible teaches about the nature of faith.
The Preposition “To”
Colin Brown notes that the word translated “to” (εἰς) “can mark the divine appointment (tasso, tithemi) of believers to eternal life (Acts 13:48), or of unbelievers to “stumbling” over the Stone due to their deliberate rejection of the message. (1 Pet. 2:8: “they who do not believe, stumble; they who stumble are also appointed for stumbling”, J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, ET 1863, V, 55)
Here, Colin Brown seems to be advocating the interpretation that “as many as believed were appointed to eternal life.” Although only believers are indeed appointed to eternal life, we have to be careful to reflect the proper grammar of the sentence: “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” More on this below. Nevertheless, regarding 1 Pet. 2:8, those who reject the gospel are appointed to stumbling, but they are not appointed to their rejection of God and the gospel.
Perhaps the emphasis of Acts 13:48 is that if it is God who “appoints,” then there is absolute assurance that the believer will attain eternal life, and the one who continually rejects will inevitably stumble. God, who is sovereign over the way of salvation, will see to it that each gets the result of the way they have chosen.
I think we can say that “appointed to” certainly need not carry the further implication of “predestined to.” Is there a deterministic predetermination to an eternal destiny taught here? “Appointed to” need not mean that God has unalterably predetermined each individual’s particular eternal destiny, that is, either eternal life or eternal damnation. Again, the context is all-important here. Below, I will present an alternate definition for tetagmenoi that more coherently accounts for the context. Let’s first take a look at the definition of the word tasso (tetagmenoi) in the New Testament.
Tasso in the New Testament: Definition and Context
Theologian Richard Watson (1781-1833) surveys the use of tasso and tetagmenoi in the New Testament. He writes,
“…in no place in the New Testament, in which the same word occurs, is it ever employed to convey the meaning of destiny, or predestination: a consideration which is fatal to the argument which has been drawn from it. The following are the only instances of its occurrence: Matt. xxviii, 16, “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.” Here the word means commanded, or at most agreed upon beforehand, and certainly conveys no idea of destiny. Luke vii, 8 “For I also am a man set under authority.” Here the word means “placed” or “disposed.” Acts xv, 2, “They determined that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem.” Here it signifies mutual agreement and decision. Acts xxii, 10, “Arise, and go to Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.” Here it means committed to, or appointed in the way of injunction; but no idea of destiny is conveyed. Acts xxviii, 23, “And when they had appointed him a day,” when they had fixed upon a day by mutual agreement; for St. Paul was not under the command or control of the visitors who came to him to hear his doctrine. Rom. xiii, 1, “The powers that be are ordained of God;” clearly signifying constituted or ordered. I Cor. xvi, 15, “They have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints;” here it can mean nothing else than applied, devoted themselves. Thus the word never takes the sense of predestination; but, on the contrary, when St. Luke wishes to convey that notion, he combines it with a preposition, and uses a compound verb – “and hath determined the time before appointed.” This was pre-ordination, and he therefore so terms it; but in the text in question he speaks not of pre-ordination, but of ordination simply. The word employed signifies, “to place, order, appoint, dispose, determine” and is variously applied. The prevalent idea is that of settling, ordering, and resolving; and the meaning of the text is, that as many as were fixed and resolved upon eternal life, as many as were careful about, and determined on salvation, believed. For that the historian is speaking of the candid and serious part of the hearers of the apostles, in opposition to the blaspheming Jews; that is, of those Gentiles “who when they heard this were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord,” is evident from the context. The persons who then believed, appear to have been under a previous preparation for receiving the Gospel; and were probably religious proselytes associating with the Jews.”[11]
I take Watson’s explanation to be a plausible, sound, and sufficient interpretation of this verse because it takes into consideration the definitional and contextual information available to us. Watson has pointed out that these people had hearts that were humble and receptive to the gospel. This explanation gains credibility when we don’t lose sight of the Jew/Gentile division that continues to have theological implications in how Paul and Luke perceive the progress of the gospel into the Gentile world set against the contrast of Jewish rejection. The contrast is stark. Acts 13 records the unique historical situation regarding the Jews’ rejection of the gospel, but also the inclusion of the Gentiles. This was precipitated by the preaching of the gospel (i.e., the coming of Jesus, his death, and resurrection). This Jewish resistance and conflict over the acceptance and inclusion of the Gentiles into salvation, by which Paul labels them as “elect” and the new “people of God,” is the situation Paul continues to attempt to get his Jewish brothers to understand and accept as from God. This is the dominant theme Paul must deal with in most of his letters. The Gentiles (as a group) rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord while the Jews (as a group) despised it. And here in Pisidian Antioch, there was a positive, glad response from the Gentiles. And this is what pleased God. For sure, in God’s salvific plans, the Gentiles were always included. That is a major teaching in the prophets and the main theme of the book of Acts. And this theme is relentless in forcing itself upon us and must be accounted for in any interpretation of Acts 13:48 and throughout the whole book of Acts. In addition, we cannot overlook the necessity of faith, which is integral to this passage. Of course, not all Gentiles believed (v.50; 14:2, 5), just as surely as not all Jews despised the word of the Lord (v. 43: 14:1). But Luke wants to communicate that the Gentiles, as a group that existed outside the privileged relation the Jew historically had with God, were receptive and believing, while the Jews were not receptive and remained in unbelief.
So, given the Gentile’s belief and the Jew’s rejection, there is an irony here that Luke may wish to draw out with the ambiguous term tasso. The way he does this is to use this less definite term whose options are “appoint,” “arrange,” dispose,” “want,” “enroll,” or “inscribe.” Even “ordain” and “destine” are possible when understood as the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s eternal salvific plans and purposes by faith. What we are sure Luke is not referring to is the deterministic concepts Calvinists impose on this verse, like “preordained,” “predestined” or “predetermined.” William Klein writes,
“In fact, there are no temporal elements in the context, only those that relate immediately to the historical situation at Antioch. The Jews rejected the gospel and disqualified themselves from salvation. The Gentiles believed and entered the category of the appointed ones. Luke’s commentary at 14:27 is germane here. God determined to set before the Gentiles an open door. In contrast to previous days, now they have an unparalleled opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel.”[12]
Note how Luke in 14:7 describes the salvation of the Gentiles as God having “opened a door of faith.” Perhaps Luke uses various idiomatic expressions when speaking about salvation. Perhaps his descriptions are flexible, and Acts 13:48 contains one of them. We do know that we should seek consistency between whatever descriptions Luke gives us. That would be a sound hermeneutical principle.
Hence, Luke’s concern is not predestinarian but rather to highlight what was characteristic of the disposition of the Gentiles in contrast to that of the Jews, that is, the Gentiles’ joy, receptivity, and response of faith upon learning that it was God’s will that they be included in salvation. What the Gentiles thought was only for the Jews and what the Jews thought was only for them, Paul corrects with the true, universal message of “good news.” The Gentile’s inclusion in salvation was supported, not only by Paul’s own authoritative Apostolic word (v. 46), but also his quoting of an Old Testament text from Isaiah 49:6 (v. 47). This was especially affirming and liberating for the Gentiles who were historically not ‘the people of God’ (Rom. 3:29; 9:25-26; Eph. 2:11-12, 17, 19; 1 Pet. 2:10). In the Old Testament, although God was the God of the Jews only, that was for the ultimate purpose of bringing salvation to the Gentile nations (Isa. 42:6, 49:6; cf. Matt. 10:18; Lu. 2:32). And although there were Gentile proselytes to Judaism, they were reticent to subscribe to curcumcision and the complex burdens of Judaism’s extensions of the Old Testament law (cf. Gal. 2:14). For the first time, therefore, they were hearing about their inclusion by God’s will, plan, and purpose, into salvation in Jesus Christ. This was God’s grace to them and could be appropriated by only one condition, that was, through their response of faith alone. Therefore, the context is very important here, even for understanding the proper definition of tasso (τεταγμένοι). The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary states the following regarding Acts 13:48:
καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, and as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed. In the controversies on predestination and election this sentence has constantly been brought forward. But it is manifestly unfair to take a sentence out of its context, and interpret it as if it stood alone. In Acts 13:46 we are told that the Jews had adjudged themselves unworthy of eternal life, and all that is meant by the words in this verse is the opposite of that expression. The Jews were acting so as to proclaim themselves unworthy; the Gentiles were making manifest their desire to be deemed worthy. The two sections were like opposing troops, ranged (τεταγμένοι = marshalled) by themselves, and to some degree, though not unalterably, looked upon as so arranged by God on different sides. Thus the Gentiles were ordering themselves, and were ordered unto eternal life. The text says no word to warrant us in thinking that none could henceforth change sides. Nor is the rendering ‘ordained’ necessarily an evidence of the Calvinistic bias of our translators.”
In Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible we read,
“They were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord. — Both verbs are in the tense of continued action. The joy was not an evanescent burst of emotion. The “word of the Lord” here is the teaching which had the Lord Jesus as its subject.
As many as were ordained to eternal life believed. — Better, as many as were disposed for. The words seem to the English reader to support the Calvinistic dogma of divine decrees as determining the belief or unbelief of men, and it is not improbable, looking to the general drift of the theology of the English Church in the early part of the seventeenth century, that the word “ordained” was chosen as expressing that dogma. It runs, with hardly any variation, through all the chief English versions, the Rhemish[13] giving the stronger form “pre-ordinate.” The Greek word, however, does not imply more than that they fell in with the divine order which the Jews rejected. They were as soldiers who take the place assigned to them in God’s great army. The quasi-middle force of the passive form of the verb is seen in the Greek of Acts 20:13, where a compound form of it is rightly rendered “for so he had appointed,” and might have been translated for so he was disposed. It lies in the nature of the case that belief was followed by a public profession of faith, but the word “believed” does not, as some have said, involve such a profession.”
So, I am inclined to prefer the definition “disposed to” or “arranged.” But, if for argument’s sake we concede to the definition “appointed,” and the Calvinist is going to claim the word “appointed” means “predestined,” then the Jews were also “appointed” to eternal life because Paul offered the “word of God” and “eternal life” to them first (v. 46). But the Jews, who were not “predestined,” rejected eternal life for themselves. But how could Paul have been thinking that the Jews were not predestined to eternal life? He could not have been thinking in terms of predestination because Paul condemns them for their unbelief! It was they themselves who rejected that “eternal life.” There is obviously no predestination here. Therefore, it is the response of the Gentiles that Luke wants to highlight in contrast to the Jews’ rejection. And in that the Jews themselves were responsible for their rejection, Luke wants us to know that there were Gentiles who were responsible for their being receptive, open, and disposed to accept this “eternal life.” These were those Gentiles who believed. So our concise translation can be “…and as many were disposed to eternal life believed.” This is the interpretation that is the simplest and most consistent with the context, both here and throughout the book of Acts, and a legitimate alternative meaning of tetamenoi.
In addition, on the Calvinist interpretation, Luke would be telling us something astonishingly inconsistent with the whole of Scripture, something not even Paul affirms in any of his letters, if by the word “appointed” Luke meant “predestined.” Luke would be indicating that he knows for sure which individuals had been predestined by God to eternal life. The predestined, in the deterministic Calvinist sense, would be those who believed. But no one knows whom God has unconditionally chosen or predestined for salvation, even among those who claim to believe. The fact that “they believed” is not a reliable indicator of the surety or assurance of their having been predestined to eternal life, as even the Westminster Confession and Calvin himself have admitted. I have discussed this matter in several places in previous chapters. What the verse is emphasizing is the Gentiles’ appointment to salvation by faith as compared to the unbelief of the Jews. It is not about predestination to salvation evidenced by belief.
Tasso in the New Testament: The Range of Definitions
How should the word tasso be defined in Acts 13:48? This is probably the most important question for the proper interpretation of this text. Here is a survey of how the most reliable lexicons and other sources define it.
G. Kittel – (TDNT) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (tasso, Vol. VIII, pp.27-29
“…God is the one who orders or appoints, though only in the passive in the NT and with no mention of God in Ac…. According to Ac. 13:48 the man who is a Christian is ordained to eternal life. The idea that God’s will to save is accomplished in Christians with their conversion is obviously not connected with the thought of predestination (IV, 192, 1ff.) but rather with that of conferring status (31, 20ff.); cf. “not worthy,” Ac. 13:46.”
A footnote regarding the English phrase “as many as” states that the Greek word (osoi) “hardly means that a specific no. was appointed but distinguishes converts from other hearers.” Another footnote mentions that the adjective “elect” or “chosen” does not occur in Acts.
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich (BDAG), A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, (tasso, p. 991)
1. To bring about an order of things by arranging, arrange, put in place
b. “of a pers. put into a specific position, used w. a prep….put someone over or in charge of someone or something.” / “of a pers. put into a specific position. pass. belong to, be classed among those possessing…Ac 13:48”
Colin Brown, ed. (DNTT) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, 476.
The idea is “to direct or appoint someone to a task, and to arrange, set up and put in order things or plans which would otherwise be indefinite and uncertain.” “tasso denotes God’s appointment of…individual persons to attain eternal life through believing the gospel (Acts 13:48).” – J. I Packer
W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p.68.
“to place in order, arrange, signifies to appoint… It is said of those who, having believed the Gospel, “were ordained to eternal life, Acts 13:48.”
A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. III, 200
“…a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word “ordain: is not the best translation here. “Appointed,” as Hackett shows, is better.”
Chase and Phillips, A New Introduction to Greek, p. 209
draw up, arrange, assign, appoint.
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT)
Note: tasso is the milder form for “appointed,” so possibly “disposed.” The word conveying a stronger sense of appointment or command is protasso. Numerous other words are used in the NT to express appointment.[14]
Tetagmenoi is best translated as “were appointed to” or “were disposed to” or even “wanted,” “enrolled,” or “inscribed,” but not “ordained.”
Commenting on the use of the word “ordained” in the verse which strongly suggests the Calvinist’s divine decree of election, theologian Richard Watson (1781-1833) says that some Calvinists are compelled to lessen their predestinarian language here by the use of other definitions for tasso. He writes,
“Even some Calvinists, not thinking that it is the practice of the apostles and evangelists to lift up the veil of the decrees so high as this interpretation supposes, choose to render the words – “as many as were determined,” or “ordered” for eternal life.”
The Influence of the Latin Vulgate
Regretfully, the Latin Vulgate translated the Greek tetagmenoi (“appointed”) in 13:48 as praeordinati (“foreordained”). Robert Shank writes,
“The unfortunate rendering of tetagmenoi as praeordinati in the Vulgate encouraged Augustine and others in the Western church (very much in the minority) in an erroneous construction of doctrine for which no support exists in the Greek text as understood by the Greek fathers, men mostly fully conversant with the language of the original text.”[15]
Shank provides a full explanation of this historical and grammatical situation. He writes,
“The fact that the Greek fathers, thoroughly conversant with the Greek text as their language of daily use, found in the passage nothing to suggest the doctrinal concept implied by the Latin rendering praeordinati indicates that the translators of the Vulgate erred in their rendering of tetagmenoi in adding the prefix prae to ordinate, not only in view of the fact tetagmenoi is without the prefix pro (the word is tasso, not protasso), but also by reason of the fact that, as Alford has observed, the word is absolute, with no assertion of the particular agency involved.”[16]
Tasso (“appoint”) does not mean to predetermine, predestine, or preordain. To “appoint,” “ordain,” or even “determine” is not to preappoint, preordain, or predetermine. Luke had words at his disposal, including protasso, that would have strengthened the word for “appoint” or clearly conveyed the idea of predestination to salvation, but he didn’t use them. (e.g., procheirizo in 22:14, where Ananias says to Paul, “‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth;” Yet, Paul genuinely spoke about the possibility of being “disobedient to the heavenly vision” in Acts 26:19.)
We see a different word used for “appoint” in reference to Jesus in Acts 10:42, “And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.” Here, the word for “appointed” (horizo) is different than tasso in Acts 13:48. In reference to God’s appointment of Jesus, this word means to “divide” or “separate.”
The point is that there is a latitude of meaning to the word tasso and a variety of words available to Luke if he intended to clearly communicate the predestination of individuals to salvation. Therefore, we don’t need to interpret Acts 13:48 deterministically. In fact, hermeneutically, the overwhelming testimony of Scripture to significant human freedom regarding salvation will not allow it, as I will attempt to show in what follows. Dave Hunt makes two crucial hermeneutical observations regarding the “harmonizing” of Scriptures and the “weight” of the evidence that will be important points in our study. He states,
“Clearly there are differences of opinion concerning the technical considerations of the Greek which only the experts are competent to discuss. That being the case, we ought to come down on the side of a rendering which harmonizes with the rest of Scripture. There are dozens of passages which declare in the plainest language that the gospel is offered to whosoever will believe it and that God desires all mankind to be saved. Consequently, it would be improper to adopt here a questionable interpretation as the basis for rejecting the overwhelming weight of Scripture.”[17]
What About Theophilus?
Luke’s gospel and Acts are written to a particular individual, Theophilus, a name meaning ‘dear to God’ or ‘friend of God.” “The title ‘most excellent’ given to him in Lk. 1:3 may denote a member of the equestrian order (possibly in some official position) or may be a courtesy title (cf. Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25). He may have been a representative of that class of Rom. society which Luke wished to influence in favour of the gospel…”[18] Note that Luke himself was a Greek from Antioch.[19]
The personal situations of both Theophilus and Luke may be influential in Luke’s stressing the sovereign work of God in bringing the gospel to the Gentiles. He also emphasizes the fact that they believed. He can therefore interpret the situation with the words, “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” The Gentiles, as a group, like the Jews, as a people, were “appointed” to eternal life. The Gentiles received the gospel, while the Jews did not. Does it follow from Acts 13:48 that each and every individual is unalterably and unconditionally predestined before the creation of the world either to eternal life or to eternal damnation? Would this theological proposition have been what Luke intended Theophilus to glean from his recorded history of the Jewish beginnings and Gentile expansion of the early church in which verse 13:48 is situated? I don’t think so, due to what is recorded in the immediate and broader contexts. Again, we must note the resistance of the Jews to the gospel. This is the context for Acts 13:48. J. P. U. Lilley writes,
“Just as the Gospel [Luke’s Gospel] represents the Sadducean chief priests of Jerusalem as prevailing upon Pilate to sentence Jesus to death against his better judgment so in Acts it is Jews who are Paul’s bitterest enemies in one place after another. While Acts records the steady advance of the gospel in the great Gentile centers of imperial civilization, it records at the same time its progressive rejection by the majority of the Jewish communities throughout the Empire.”[20]
Towards a Plausible Interpretation of Acts 13:48
Upon consideration of the grammatical and definitional details of this verse, I have concluded that there are two broader fundamental observations involved in correctly interpreting this passage.
The first observation is that the contexts of Acts 13:48, that is, both the immediate context and the broader context of the book of Acts, provide the requisite information by which this verse can be rightly understood. These contexts also provide the details by which the Calvinists’ interpretation of unconditional election must be dismissed. We must understand that for the Calvinist, even given the several legitimate definitions of τεταγμένοι, the Calvinist insists the verse means “as many as were unconditionally elected by God to eternal life believed.” Calvinists are prone to insert their theology into a text (i.e., eisegesis) when they run into words such as “appointed” or “destined.” These trigger their presupposed doctrinal understanding, and they interpret the text accordingly, even when the contexts do not support their interpretation.
The second observation involves the meaning of the Greek word tasso, most often translated in our English Bibles as “appointed.” Yet, the definition of this word can vary (e.g., appoint, draw up, destine, arrange, assign, dispose, ordain, etc.). This range of definitions, along with its grammatical features (i.e., passive or middle voice, pluperfect/past perfect tense used periphrastically with ἦσαν), all combine to present an interpretive challenge, but also a range of possibilities. And this is why context becomes so important. The broader and immediate contexts of this verse will compel us to adopt a particular definition of the word tasso.
Robert Shank on the Importance of Context
So, what is Luke’s point in employing such a complex grammatical construction? Does this grammatical construction require the Calvinist interpretation of unconditional election? Why? In fact, if it can be shown that the text cannot be interpreted as unconditional election, and that there are other plausible alternatives, then we will have provided more evidence against Calvinism.
One aspect of this context that I believe does justice to Luke’s grammar is highlighted by Paul’s use of the prophetic word of Isaiah 49:6. Paul wants to emphasize, especially to the Jews, that it was God’s intention throughout the history of his creation and dealings with Israel in the Old Testament to also include the Gentiles in salvation. This refers to God’s action prior to the Gentiles believing. Luke also uses the word tasso, which has various meanings to be considered. Some definitions are similar to God’s relationship to Israel as his “elect.” Luke uses the form τεταγμένοι [tetagmenoi] to refer to the situation of the Gentiles. If Luke intended unconditional election here, that would be something that, as the capable grammarian and writer that he is, he could have made perfectly clear. But he doesn’t do this. As such, the word he chooses, tasso, is somewhat ambiguous. This makes the interpretation here difficult. But it is not beyond our understanding and reasonable conclusions if we read it in context. Robert Shank, whose treatment of this verse is exceptional and thorough, comments on this issue.
“Another passage to which men have appealed in support of the thesis of a “hidden” call arbitrarily reserved for particular men unconditionally elect is Acts 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.” The appeal to this passage is understandable, for the passage appears to lend strong support to the thesis in question. However, the support is only apparent rather than real, and on careful examination the passage is found to be not in conflict with 1 Timothy 2:4 and its many cognates which affirm the desire of God for the salvation of all men.
Commentators are divided on the question of the precise significance of tetagmenoi, which the Authorized Version (following the Vulgate) renders “ordained,” as do most English versions, including the Revised Standard Version. As in the case of many words, tasso possesses latitude, and the determination of its meaning in any instance becomes a matter of interpretation. It is imperative that full consideration be given to context in determining the precise meaning of tetagmenoi in Acts 13:48.”[21]
Note Shank’s emphasis on context. This is precisely what the Calvinist ignores, not only here, but in many other places in Scripture. Certain isolated verses pulled from their contexts can be made to support Calvinist theology, but this amounts to proof-texting, which ignores the principle of context. And it is the hermeneutical principle of context which safeguards the interpreter from using the text to support his own theological presuppositions. As far as biblical interpretation is concerned, this is how Calvinism survives. But when we are taught to read Scripture broadly, to get a sense for the different styles and emphases of the authors, and to read verses within their own contexts to discern the author’s intent, we are much more likely to understand verses like Acts 13:48 correctly. Therefore, Shank makes the following observation about this principle. The “men” Shank speaks of are Calvinists, and “the thesis in question” is their doctrine of unconditional election. He writes,
“This [reading in context] men have failed to do who have presumed to find in the verse support for the thesis in question [unconditional election]. Alford comments:
The meaning of [tetagmenoi] must be determined by the context. The Jews had just judged themselves unworthy of eternal life: the Gentiles, as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed. By whom so disposed is not here declared: nor need the word be in this place further particularized. We know that it is God who worketh in us the will to believe, and that the preparation of the heart is of him:[22] but to find in this text pre-ordination to life asserted is to force both the word and the context to a meaning which they do not contain. The key to the word here is the comparison of [I Cor. 16:15 and Rom. 13:1] in both of which places the agents are expressed, whereas here the word is absolute. See also ch. xx. 13…Wordsworth well observes that it would be interesting to enquire what influence such renderings as this of praeordinati in the Vulgate version had on the minds of men like St. Augustine and his followers in the Western Church in treating the great questions of free will, election, reprobation, and final perseverance: and on some writers in the Reformed churches who, though rejecting the authority of that version, were yet swayed by it away for the sense of the original here and in ch. ii. 47. The tendency of the Eastern Fathers, who read the original Greek, was, he remarks, in a different direction from that of the Western School.”[23]
Wordsworth’s observations merit serious reflection. The fact that the Greek Fathers, thoroughly conversant with the Greek text as their native tongue and the language of daily use, found in the passage nothing to suggest that doctrinal concept implied by the Latin rendering praeordinati indicates that the translation of the Vulgate erred in their rendering of tetagmenoi in adding the prefix prae to ordinati, not only in view of the fact that tetagamenoi (the word is tasso, not protasso), but also by reason of the fact that, as Alford has observed, the words is absolute, with no assertion of the particular agency involved. The fact that human agency is explicitly asserted in verse 46 – “since you thrust [the word of God] from you and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life” – strongly militates against any assumption of divine agency in verse 48 and of an eternal decree of unconditional particular election, an assumption invited by the unfortunate and unwarranted addition of the prefix prae.”[24]
Now, even though Shank correctly observed that commentators are divided over the precise meaning of tetagmenoi, I contend that we can determine which commentators are correct about its meaning by examining the context. Hence, Shank continues with the following evidence.
“The fact and significance of human agency and self-determination is quite apparent in verse 46, and verse 48 must be understood in the light of its context.”[25]
Note once again the importance of context.
“Rotherham translates Acts 13:48, “And they of the nations, hearing this, began to rejoice and to be glorifying God, and they believed – as many as had become disposed for life age-abiding.”[26] Rotherham’s rendering “had become disposed” is fully warranted…
Bartlet comments on Acts 13:48
ordained to eternal life. A bad rendering, as suggesting that human choice had no real part in such belief. The idea is simply that of preparedness of heart, without any thought as to how this came about. This is clear from the Jews’ unreadiness: they “judged themselves unworthy” (in the sense of Matt. xxii. 8, ‘The wedding is ready, but they that were bidden were not worthy’ – i.e. as making light of it, verse 5). Thus all is conceived to turn ultimately on man’s own choice. Like the Pharisees in Luke vii. 30, the Jews ‘rejected for themselves the counsel of God.’ No divine ‘decree’ ordained the result either way. The best rendering then would be, ‘were (found) disposed to eternal life,’ which preserves the exact shade of the verb (‘to set in order, arrange, dispose’)[27] and has just that degree of ambiguity which belongs to the original.”[28]
The ambiguity of tasso is a notable feature of the verse. It is the cause of the temptation to impose one’s own theological presuppositions onto the text. Therefore, again, context is crucial here to prevent eisegesis. And we can see that the context is moving us towards “disposed to” and away from “appointed to.” The essential issue Luke is emphasizing here is disposition. The Gentiles rejoiced and were glad when they heard the gospel would be preached to them and that they were included in salvation by faith. Contrast this with the jealousy and rejection of the gospel and salvation by the Jews, along with their unbelief, and this makes the meaning of tasso [tetagmenoi] clearer. It is speaking about the disposition of the Gentiles in contrast to the disposition of the Jews. This definition brings out the vast difference between the Jewish attitude of hardness of the heart and the humble and receptive attitude of the Gentiles to the news that the gospel is for them too. For all the reasons discussed thus far, “disposed to” is the most reasonable, responsible, and satisfactory interpretation of tasso. We may also translate it as a middle voice. I therefore suggest that the verse be interpreted as follows:
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were disposed to eternal life believed.”
Dealing with the Stronger Definitions of Tetagmenoi
If we take tetagmenoi as a passive voice, and even if we define it along the lines of “appointed,” “destined,” or even “ordained,” we may propose that Luke, just having recorded Paul’s remarks about the unbelief of the Jews, intended to make an historical and theological comparison, that is, associate the status of the Gentiles in God’s economy with that of Israel as God’s “elect.” Although Israel is God’s elect people, Luke’s use of the word tetagmenoi may be pressing the issue that the Gentiles have also been given an equal place, or special status, by God as appointed, destined, or ordained “to eternal life.” But this need not be an affirmation of individual unconditional election. Luke is viewing the Gentiles as a group in contrast to the Jews as a group. There is nothing in these meanings of tetagmenoi that requires the interpretation of individual unconditional election. The best interpretation that fits the immediate and broader context in Acts will be that those Gentiles who have open, receptive hearts to God, as shown by their association with the Jews and Judaism, are those who are appointed, destined, or ordained to eternal life. The point would be that the God who chose Israel has also ‘chosen’ or ‘appointed’ the Gentiles, not in the same historical sense of the establishment of Israel as a national entity, but as recipients of the divine salvific purposes that were Israel’s by promise, but who are now rejecting those purposes for themselves. A divine purpose for Israel was to receive their Messiah and to bring the gospel to the Gentiles.
This view also highlights that God does not ignore those who are seeking him. He brings the gospel to those who are genuinely searching for the one true God. And when God brings them the gospel, as exemplified by these Gentiles who want eternal life. When he brings the gospel to them, they believe.
Now, for those who were “God-fearing” and “devout,” those who demonstrated a desire for God, Paul could predict they would believe. If we allow for the meaning of “destined” here, this does not mean predestined by God. It refers to the predictable consequence of certain attitudes or behaviors. And this works both ways. Note how Peter in 1 Peter 2:6-8 perceives a predictable destiny of “stumbling” for those who refuse to believe. The translation by J. B. Phillips best brings out this truth. Peter writes,
“There is a passage to this effect in scripture, and it runs like this: ‘Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on him will by no means be put to shame’.
It is you who believe in him that he is “precious”, but to those who disobey God, it is true that: ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone’.
And he is, to them, ‘a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence’.
Yes, they stumble at the Word of God for in their hearts they are unwilling to obey it—which makes stumbling a foregone conclusion.” (1 Peter 2:6-8, JBP)
So, similarly, some are willing to obey the word of God. Their hearts are right. They are humble and desire to know God. They are the devout, God-fearing Gentile proselytes to Judaism. Hence, when the Gentiles with this spiritual disposition heard that Paul would now be bringing them the gospel, “they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were destined to eternal life believed.” Just as those in 1 Peter 2 who disobey the word of God are destined to stumble, so are those who obey the word of God destined to eternal life. So, I think Luke was saying the following:
“And when the Gentiles heard that Paul was now turning to them to bring them the word of God, as those who were historically outside the “people of God,” that is, the Jews, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord and as many as were destined to eternal life, that is, those who had willing, humble, obedient hearts, believed.”
From God’s perspective, the “destiny” of these Gentiles was completed in the past. The Gentiles were, as a group, in contrast to the Jews as a group, in a state of being “destined to eternal life.” That state was prior to their belief. It was God’s plan for them too, but they had to hear the gospel. When they did, they believed. Luke puts all of this into the succinct statement of verse 48.
We should say a word about Calvinists who attempt to use 1 Pet. 2:8 to support the Calvinist doctrine of reprobation. Robert Shank, after presenting Joh. Ed. Huther’s argument that the context does not support the Calvinist interpretation provides decisive evidence against that interpretation. He writes,
“Huther’s contention that immediate context militates against any assumption of support from I Peter 2:8 for the doctrine of unconditional reprobation is augmented by an evidence that must be regarded as finally decisive: such a doctrine radically contradicts the many explicit, categorical affirmations of Scripture of God’s desire and provision for the salvation of all men. The great body of “universal” passages dictates the rejection of all interpretations (and translations) of I Peter 2:8 which, though grammatically allowable, are inadmissible in the light of the context of the whole body of the Holy Scriptures.”[29]
Note the emphasis on context again as a necessary principle of interpretation. The Calvinists’ problem is a hermeneutical one. Our hermeneutic cannot evidence logical, moral, or theological incoherence, inconsistency, or contradiction with other passages and clearly presented biblical themes, especially that of the gospel as “good news.” This is the fatal flaw in Calvinism, something they do not affirm. They have adopted a hermeneutic of incoherence. This is the thesis I have presented on this site.
Robert Shank and Richard Watson on Some Absurd Assumptions
The Calvinists’ interpretation of this verse leads to other unwarranted assumptions and a textual inconsistency. Robert Shank observes,
“All who assume that tetagmenoi in Acts 13:48 implies that those who believed the Gospel at that particular time and place did so as the consequence of an eternal decree of unconditional election unwittingly embrace a second assumption, completely absurd: all present in the synagogue who ever were to believe the Gospel did so at once; there could be no further opportunity to consider the Gospel, and no man who failed to believe that moment could ever subsequently believe. A preposterous assumption! Such a pattern fits neither the case of Paul himself nor the universal experience of the Church through all generations.” (Elect in the Son, 187)
Richard Watson observes,
“This interpretation supposes that all the elect Gentiles at Antioch believed at that time; and that no more, at least of full age, remained to believe. This is rather difficult to admit; and therefore Mr. Scott says, “though it is probable that all who were thus affected at first, did not at that time believe unto salvation; yet many did.” But this is not according to the text, which says expressly, “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed:” so that such commentators must take this inconvenient circumstance along with their interpretation, that all the elect at Antioch were, at the moment, brought into Christ’s Church.”[30]
Moreover, if this verse is interpreted as referring to predestination or unconditional election, we run up against a contextual inconsistency. If the Calvinist’s predestinarian definition is true, then the Jews who rejected the word of the Lord were not predestined to salvation and could not do otherwise than reject the gospel. But that turns Paul’s words into nonsense because he holds them accountable for their rejection. So, the context of Paul’s ministry of the word of God to the Jews, their rejection of it, and the nature of Paul’s pronouncement against them, which holds them accountable and culpable for their rejection, all speak against the Calvinist’s interpretation that takes tasso as meaning predestination or unconditional election. So we know Paul does not hold to a doctrine of predestination or unconditional election as defined by Calvin and present-day Calvinists. Indeed, this is also strongly affirmed by verse 51, where we read that “they shook off the dust of their feet against them.” This was a sign of judgment upon those Jews who rejected Paul’s message, which presupposes their freedom and responsibility to have received it. More on this below.
Luke’s Continued Emphasis on Paul’s Ministry to the Gentiles
In Acts 13:48, we have the historical account of Jewish rejection and Gentile acceptance of the gospel. This happened after the conversion of Cornelius, which compelled the apostles and “the brothers” (11:1) in Jerusalem and Judea to recognize that God’s salvific intentions included the Gentiles (chps. 10, 11, and 15). The account records the extension of the gospel into the Gentile world. Hence, “as many as were disposed to eternal life believed” is the interpretation most consistent with all the data that must be considered. And even up until the end of Luke’s historical account, he records Paul saying in Acts 28:28, “Therefore, let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.” (ESV) Just before this pronouncement, Paul quotes from Isaiah 6:9. We read,
“Go to these people and say:
You will always be listening,
but never understanding;
and you will always be looking,
but never perceiving.
For the hearts of these people
have grown callous,
their ears are hard of hearing,
and they have shut their eyes;
otherwise they might see with their eyes
and hear with their ears,
understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.” (Acts 28:26-27, CSB / Isaiah 6:9)
The Jews were stubborn until the end. And this confirmed the stark contrast between the spiritual disposition of the Jews and the Gentiles. Certainly, many Jews did believe (v. 24), but as a whole community, as a group, and especially the Jewish leadership, they did not. Throughout Acts, the Jews were continually rejecting the word of God, which had to be spoken to them first. But Paul’s experience was that they “thrust it aside” and judged themselves “unworthy of eternal life” (13:46). Was this the end of Paul’s gospel outreach and mission? Not at all! In the very context of Acts 13 Paul declares “…behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.” (v. 46) And in the end, in Acts 28, Paul affirms that salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and the difference is that “they will listen” (Acts 28:28).
We should note the use of the word τέθεικά (perf., act., indic. from τίθημι. tithemi) in the quote of Isaiah 49:6 in Acts 13:47. It too can be translated as “appointed.” We find this in the transliteration of the Greek in The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, based on the UBS 4th, corrected edition. Although the transliteration has “I have appointed you to be a light…,” the English text in the NRSV has “I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles…” The ESV, NIV, and CSB all have “I have made you a light for the Gentiles…” The point is that what was told by Isaiah long ago was understood by Paul to apply to his God-given mission to the Gentiles. On the authority of the Old Testament prophet, that is, “the Lord has commanded…” (v. 47a), Paul and his companions (“us”) were commissioned by God to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles. So, we have this element in the text that, from prior times, it was God’s intent all along to include the Gentiles in his work of salvation.
Moreover, in Acts 13 the Jews just heard a long sermon by Paul about their history and “the good news” that “God promised to the fathers” which he has “fulfilled to us his children by raising Jesus” (v. 32). This was also affirmed by David in the Psalms (2:7; 16:10) and again by Isaiah (55:3) which culminated in a decisive presentation of the gospel with these words:
“Therefore, let it be known to you, brothers and sisters, that through this man forgiveness of sins is being proclaimed to you. Everyone who believes is justified through him from everything that you could not be justified from through the law of Moses.” (vss. 38-39, CSB)
And then Paul gives them a warning.
“So beware that what is said in the prophets does not happen to you:
Look, you scoffers,
marvel and vanish away,
because I am doing a work in your days,
a work that you will never believe,
even if someone were to explain it to you.”(vss. 4-41, CSB / Hab. 1:5)
Another prophet is invoked. This time it is Habakuk. And the initial response is generally positive.
“As they were leaving, the people urged them to speak about these matters the following Sabbath. After the synagogue had been dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who were speaking with them and urging them to continue in the grace of God.” (vss. 42-43, CSB)
In verse 42, some manuscripts (e.g., KJV, WEB) read,
“As they were leaving the synagogue of the Jews, the Gentiles urged them to speak about these matters the following Sabbath.”
These manuscripts clarify what is subsequently stated about “many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism” who followed Paul and Barnabas. Those “devout converts to Judaism” refer to Gentiles. Here we have a Lukan theme that runs throughout Acts. There were God-fearing Gentiles who were seeking God within Judaism. Along with the Jews in the synagogue, there are Gentile proselytes, that is, “devout converts to Judaism.”
But even after this speech, “the Jews,” which probably refers to the leadership or rulers of the Jews (cf. v. 27), considered themselves unworthy of eternal life, so Paul informs them, “we are now turning to the Gentiles” (v. 46, cf. 9:15). This is a radical statement for the Jews to hear. We saw, based on God’s prior prophetic word, that this inclusion of the Gentiles is what God certainly intended and would bring to pass. It seems to me that Luke intends to make the point clear, as he develops this Jew/Gentile contrast theme throughout Acts. This was an important shift in the ministry of Paul and Barnabas. After Peter’s ministry to the Gentiles and testimony to the church of his experience at Cornelius’ house (cf. 10:1-2, 22, 28, 31, 34-35, 43, 45; 11:1, 14, 18, 19-21), Paul tells them about the command they received from the Lord, which was, “I have appointed you for a light to the Gentiles…” (v. 47, Isa. 49:6). Luke then records for us what the Gentiles did when they heard this news. They rejoiced and believed.
This theme of God’s work among his own people and among the Gentiles and the relationship between the two groups is so important for rightly interpreting many other passages in this controversy, such as Romans 9-11, John 6, and Ephesians 1. We see this dynamic in our study of these texts and in many others throughout Scripture, especially in the gospel accounts. It is this Jew/Gentile problem that is on Paul’s mind. The problem is not the fifteenth-century issue between the works and rituals of Roman Catholicism and salvation by faith alone. We should not interpret Paul in light of the issues and conflicts of the Protestant Reformation. Paul is not advocating unconditional election as the remedy to works righteousness. Although the Bible clearly shows us the true way of salvation, it does so in the context of the Jews’ rejection of their Messiah as the elect or chosen “people of God” and the inclusion of the Gentiles who were not God’s chosen or elect people in God’s salvation in Jesus. It is these dynamics of biblical salvation history that Paul has to reckon with and explain to both the Jews and Gentiles of his day.
With “Tetagmenoi” Meaning “Appointed To”
Most English versions translate τεταγμένοι as “appointed to.” Therefore, we have to try to understand the implications of this translation for this verse in its context.
Keeping in mind that the kind of action is the fundamental significance of tense in Greek, not the time element, the best we can do, if we are considering that τεταγμένοι should be interpreted as “appointed to,” is as follows.
The past perfect or pluperfect tense of the participle τεταγμένοι expresses a completed action viewed from a point in past time, that is, Luke’s past, with continuing results. The tense of this participle indicates a completed past action with continuous results before the occurrence of another past action, which is also completed. What are these actions?
The first speaks of God having appointed the Gentiles for salvation. The second action is having the gospel proclaimed to them. Luke records these as completed actions. This appointment, which originated in the Old Testament (or even before creation), is continuous or abiding, that is, it still holds true. This appointment is linked to ἦσαν, “they were,” in the imperfect tense, which refers to continuous action in past time, which seems to add to the continuity of the completed action of their appointment. It is the grounds for “they believed,” which in the aorist tense represents undefined or indefinite action. But of course, not all Gentiles believed.
Luke’s understanding is that God, in his sovereignty, intended the inclusion of the Gentiles in his plan of salvation. And Luke’s use of the word tasso expresses just that and is used to avoid any predestinarian conclusions. The word’s definition and tense make a precise translation difficult. The word is somewhat ambiguous. So, if one insists on translating the word as “appointed to,” I believe Luke’s thought is simply to stress that the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles had been God-ordained from the beginning. The Gentiles were appointed to eternal life, but of course, not all the Gentiles will be saved. Therefore, the “as many as” refers to those appointed to eternal life, and yet must include that they believed. But the nature of their faith is not elaborated on here, and neither did Luke choose an unambiguous word like “predestined to” if that is what he meant to say. But he didn’t choose such a word because that is not what he meant to say. Here I am attempting to understand the interpretation “appointed to,” which I do not think is the best translation of τεταγμένοι. I think the one in the section “With “Tetagmenoi” Meaning “Disposed To, is the better translation in both the literary and historical contexts, which I will consider below.
So, conceding this “appointed to” interpretation, this most common translation may still make sense in the historical context and therefore still stands: “…and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Nevertheless, τεταγμένοι certainly cannot bear the weight of “appointed to,” defined as “predestined to,” as the Calvinist says it must mean. Luke could have been clear about that if he had meant to be. Even the periphrastic use in the perfect tense, along with the imperfect tense of ἦσαν, cannot provide enough clarity to claim a predestinarian interpretation.
The Meaning of “Tetagmenoi” When Taken In The Passive Voice
Getting back to our verse, what about the definition of τεταγμένοι? We have seen that we must decide both its definition and its voice. I have suggested a reasonable answer to both above – that it should be taken in the middle voice with its definition being “disposed to.” But if we take it in the passive rather than the middle voice, Luke is likely emphasizing God’s word in the Isaiah prophecy, which tells of God’s prior intention to include the Gentiles in the salvation already proclaimed to the Jews. The action of τεταγμένοι, whatever it means, was completed before that time, with the results continuing into their present time. These Gentiles were slated by God, before that time, to hear the gospel of their salvation. God’s concern for the Gentiles was an ongoing fact or condition that existed when they believed. By constructing the grammar as he does, Luke brings in both the fact of God’s eternal “determination,” or “ordination,” or “appointment” – whichever you prefer – of the Gentiles for salvation, and this, in contrast to the fact that God’s people – the “elect’ or “chosen” people of Israel – are now rejecting the word of God, that is, their salvation in Jesus. The point is that the Gentiles, the “outsiders,” have always been included in God’s salvation plan and they are listening and believing. Nothing here affirms the Calvinists’ universal divine causal determinism. Rather, both the context and the verse itself affirm the freedom of the human will in both the Jewish rejection of Paul’s message and the disposition of the God-fearing Gentiles who joyfully receive it. The emphasis of the passive is simply that it was God who appointed that the Gentiles would receive the gospel.
Luke is telling us about the irony of the Jews being the chosen or elect people of God and yet rejecting His salvation in Jesus. Luke wants to highlight this in contrast to the response of faith by the Gentiles. Yet Luke wants to show us that the Gentiles were also on God’s heart and mind as salvation history progressed through the Old Testament. Luke uses τεταγμένοι to make the point that now the Gentiles are considered on par with the Jews, even “chosen” and “elect” (just as we saw Paul use these terms to describe believers in Jesus in our Thessalonian passages and in his other letters), but Luke won’t overstate the case deterministically, so he speaks about those Gentiles “disposed to” or “prepared for “eternal life.” If we defer to “appointed to,” which is the most common translation in our English bibles, this still avoids what Luke surely does not want to say, that is, “predestined,” otherwise he would have said it.[31] (For a non-Calvinistic sense of people being “destined” see 1 Pet. 2:4-10, esp. 8b)
What we cannot affirm is the Calvinist idea of predestination to salvation because that is inconsistent with the context and not what Luke wrote. Luke chooses the ambiguous word tasso, which makes the translation difficult. In the passive voice, which again I do not think is the correct voice here, Luke is telling us about God’s perspective and action regarding the Gentiles who now believe. God’s salvific plan included the Gentiles. That is what Luke wanted to communicate. The definition of τεταγμένοι as referring to the disposition of certain Gentiles, which Luke has already stressed through several of his accounts in Acts. (See also Josh Howerton’s sermon on Acts 18:10, parts 1 and 2). But the passive voice here would emphasize God’s salvific intentions. Those intentions were to include the Gentiles in what God was doing with Israel. That is what we see progressively unfolding in Acts. This is Luke’s message in this context. He is telling us that the special relationship the Jews had with God, which they forfeited, also applies to the Gentiles.
As far as the definition of τεταγμένοι is concerned, the disposition of the Gentiles as God-fearing or devout is the better definition here (i.e., “as many as were disposed to eternal life believed”). It is hard to justify the definition “appointed to” with the phrase “as many as” without falling into a deterministic interpretation of this verse. But even if Luke is emphasizing God’s appointment of Gentiles to eternal life, this cannot, of course, mean that God predestined certain individuals from among all the Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch to eternal life. That would be inconsistent with all Paul writes about God’s desire that all people be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3-6, cf. Jn. 3:16).
With “Tetagmenoi” Meaning “Disposed To”
As I stated above, I am convinced by this study thus far that the best interpretation of tetagmenoi is “disposed to.” This makes the most sense of the relative pronoun “as many as,” as well as the context of the disposition of unbelief of the Jews, along with Paul’s words that hold them accountable for their unbelief. Furthermore, many bible versions recognize the legitimacy of this definition of τεταγμένοι in their translations. Here are some of them.
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
“When the non-Jewish people heard Paul say this, they were happy. They gave honor to the message of the Lord, and many of them believed it. These were the ones chosen to have eternal life.”
Here, the contrast with the unbelief of the Jews, even though they were God’s “chosen ones,” is highlighted.
God’s Word Translation (GWT)
“The people who were not Jews were pleased with what they heard and praised the Lord’s word. Everyone who had been prepared for everlasting life believed.”
This is better than the previous version. Again, the contrast with Jewish unbelief, but also a definition of tasso as “prepared for.”
The Living Bible (TLB)
“When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and rejoiced in Paul’s message; and as many as wanted eternal life believed.”
Plainly put. It gets the meaning across.
A footnote for tetagmenoi reads “wanted, or “were disposed to,” or “were ordained to.” But as A. T. Robertson stated, “ordained to” is not the best translation. See also the Bartlet quote above.
Names of God Bible (NOG)
“The people who were not Jews were pleased with what they heard and praised the Lord’s word. Everyone who had been prepared for everlasting life believed.”
If translated in the middle voice, which I think is best, then the meaning is “prepared themselves.”
Anderson New Testament (ANT)
“When the Gentiles heard this they rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were determined to obtain eternal life, believed.”
Again, the middle voice, and therefore a legitimate definition of tetagmenoi. It highlights the sense of the ‘determination’ of those Gentiles to have eternal life. These would have been the Gentiles who rejoiced at the news that the gospel message was for them too. “As many as” would identify those Gentiles in contrast to other Gentiles who were indifferent to God and the gospel. The God-fearing Gentiles rejoiced, indicating their desire to have eternal life. They were the ones who believed.
Mace New Testament (MNT)
“…when the Gentiles heard this, they received the word with joy, glorifying the Lord: and as many as were dispos’d to eternal life, believed.”
S. T. Bloomfield writes,
“Chrysostom goes so far as to say that the expression tetagmenoi is employed to intimate that the thing is not a matter of necessity, or what is compulsory. And thus, far from favoring the system of an absolute decree, the words would lead to the opposite conclusion, that the Creator, while ‘binding nature fast in fate, left free the human will.”[32]
Robert Shank notes that Rotherham translates Acts 13:48,
“And they of the nations, hearing this, began to rejoice and to be glorifying God, and they believed – as many as had become disposed for life age-abiding.”[33] Shank states that “Rotherham’s rendering “had become disposed” is fully warranted. Citing examples, Bloomfield asserts (as do others) that the passive voice of tasso often conveys the middle sense…”[34]
“Bartlet comments on Acts 13:48, ordained to eternal life. A bad rendering, as suggesting that human choice had no real part in such belief. The idea is simply that of preparedness of heart, without any thought as to how this came about. This is clear from the account of the Jews’ unreadiness: they ‘judged themselves unworthy’ (in the sense of Matt. xxii. 8, ‘The wedding is ready, but they that were bidden were not worthy’ – i.e. as making light of it, verse 5). Thus all is conceived to turn ultimately on man’s own choice. Like the Pharisees in Luke vii. 30, the Jews ‘rejected for themselves the counsel of God.’ No divine ‘decree’ ordained the result either way. The best rendering then would be, ‘were (found) disposed to eternal life,’ which preserves the exact shade of the verb (‘to set in order, arrange, dispose’) and has just that degree of ambiguity which belongs to the original.[35]”
James Oliver Buswell, himself a Calvinist, writes,
“…the Bible student must be careful not to make this doctrine a hobby, and not to read it into all possible contexts contrary to the intention of the inspired writers.
For example, in Acts 13:48, with reference to the preaching of the Gospel in Pisidian Antioch, we read “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” (Acts 13:48, 49).
From the basis of the words, “as many as were ordained to eternal life,” some have argued that in that particular mission of Paul and Barnabas, every individual in that city who was among the elect of God was saved at that particular time…
Actually the words of Acts 13:48,49, do not necessarily have any reference whatever to the doctrine of God’s eternal decree of election. The passive participle tetagmenoi may simply mean “ready,” and we might well read, “as many as were prepared for eternal life, believed.”
Commenting on this word, Alford says, “The meaning of this word must be determined by the context. The Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life [v. 46]; the Gentiles, ‘as many as were disposed to eternal life,’ believed…to find in this text preordination to life asserted, is to force both the word and the context to a meaning which they do not contain.” Alford’s entire discussion of this passage is rewarding.”[36]
So, this verse cannot be interpreted to support the Calvinist doctrines of predestination or unconditional election. This is because of 1) the legitimacy of tetagmenoi being interpreted in the middle voice, 2) that the definition of tetagmenoi as “disposed to” is fully warranted, 3) that the contexts, both the immediate and broader contexts to be discussed below, support #1 and #2 above, and 4) the logical, moral, and theological incoherence of Calvinist determinism is hermeneutically irresponsible.
Ignoring these factors throws the verse into confusion. For these reasons, it cannot be said that Luke means to inform us that unconditional election or predestination by God of a limited number of Gentiles is at work here. Luke’s intent is best interpreted as follows. Here are three of my own paraphrases.
1) “When the Gentiles heard the prophecy of Isaiah which revealed that God fully intended that they too be included in his plan of salvation, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as were disposed to receive eternal life believed.”
2) “Now the Gentiles, when they heard Paul quote Isaiah, who foretold that the message of salvation was to be brought to them, began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord. And those Gentiles who wanted eternal life, upon hearing the gospel, believed.
3) “Now, from among the Gentiles who were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord upon hearing that the message of salvation was to be brought to them as it was to the Jews, as many as were prepared for eternal life believed, in contrast to the Jews who rejected the message in unbelief.”
I have attempted to show, following the principles of grammar and historical and literary context, what Luke’s intent was in writing Acts 13:48. Because we have seen how important context is for proper interpretation, let us now examine the broader context of Acts to see whether it supports our interpretive conclusions.
Acts 13:48 in the Broader Context of the Book of Acts
In the context of the whole book of Acts, we see that Luke’s account, while stressing God’s sovereign activity by his Holy Spirit, presupposes significant human freedom and explicitly teaches a non-deterministic reality. Nothing about God’s sovereign activity in Acts can be interpreted as requiring a universal divine causal determinism (i.e., Calvinism). Let’s examine both the divine “sovereignty” passages as well as those that affirm human freedom and contingency, especially regarding salvation..
Acts 2:21
“And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (ESV)
It would be unwarranted to impose upon these words the idea that only a limited number of elect persons constitute the “everyone” and only this limited elect will “call upon the name of the Lord” and be saved. That would be to read Calvinism into the text (i.e., eisegesis, rather than exegesis). The main point that emerges in Acts is that what God did in Christ is not something only for the Jew, but would transcend all boundaries – physical, social, religious, economic, ethic/racial, etc. It would include “everyone.” We should not construe this “everyone” merely as God’s elect from among every class of men (i.e, tribes, tongues, nations, etc.), for that would result in God being more concerned about classes of men than the individual persons who make up those classes. What are the classes of men but the individual persons that compose them! God loves the individual persons that make up all classes of men, not the classes themselves.
Here Peter makes that point from within the Jewish prophetic context itself by quoting the prophet Joel, thus sending a message to those Jews who, while correctly understanding themselves as the chosen people of God, misunderstood God’s plans and purposes for having chosen them as his people. They were to be “a light to the Gentiles” and “bring salvation to the ends of the earth” (Acts 13:47, cf. Isa. 49:6).
Acts 2:37-41
“Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (ESV)
Here we find receptive hearts among the Jews and those gathered in Jerusalem. This is a theme throughout Acts and is especially relevant for the proper interpretation of Acts 13:48. Again, “every one of you” makes explicit that the salvation Peter is preaching, and “the rest of the apostles” affirmed, has universal applicability and potential. Every one of them can be saved if they repent and are baptized as a sign of their faith. Note that this contingency is set squarely in the context of God’s “definite plan and foreknowledge” by which Jesus was “delivered up” (2:23). This is an example of God’s sovereign activity. It was according to God’s “definite plan and foreknowledge” that Jesus was crucified. Other versions have “deliberate plan” (NIV) or “determined plan” (CSB). That means that even given God’s sovereign activity in the world to work out salvation for mankind, the situation of any individual’s salvation is not closed or predetermined but remains an open issue that involves the human heart and will. Peter is clear about this. The eternal destiny of all who hear him is an open matter that depends upon receiving “the promise” through faith, evidenced by repentance and baptism.
It should be noted that the ESV suggests the Calvinist doctrine of the “effectual call” by adding “to himself” to the end of this verse, that is, “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Other versions have “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (NIV) The CSB reads, “For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” This “call” is the gospel call, not an “effectual call” operating based on unconditional election. There is only one call, and it is the call to be saved that comes through the gospel message. Peter is clear that salvation depends upon each individual’s response to the message that “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (ESV).
Now, in the context of Jewish exclusivism, we can better understand what is meant by “everyone” or “all” or “as many as the Lord our God will call.” The “promise” was to the Jews. Therefore, the promise is to the Jews, their children, and all who are far off. But by speaking about “everyone” or “all” or “as many as,” Peter is foreshadowing something he will have to learn later in chapter 10 with the conversion of Cornelius. Peter will learn that it is God’s prerogative to transcend the boundaries of Israel and call others, namely the Gentiles, “to himself.” He does this through the gospel message. Through the gospel, God will also call others, not just the Jews, to be saved. And these people, these Gentile “outsiders,” will become included in “the people of God.” (1 Pet. 2:9-10) Within the context of Luke’s themes and purposes in Acts, we need not interpret this verse deterministically as an “effectual call” based on an absolute decree of God to save some and pass over others. Such an interpretation would be incoherent with the obvious explicit statements and implications of human freedom here and throughout Acts.
Note what Peter does. “With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” (NIV) The CSB has “With many other words he testified and strongly urged them, saying, “Be saved from this corrupt generation!” The ESV has “exhort.” “Warned,” “pleaded,” “strongly urged,” and “exhorted” all imply the contingency of the situation and the freedom to respond in acceptance or rejection of the message. The content of the exhortation is clearly non-deterministic – “Save yourselves…” Salvation is something the person must appropriate to themselves by faith, evidenced by repentance and baptism. It requires something that is of the person themselves– a decisive surrender of the will and change of heart and mind to agree with God and receive his gift of salvation. Salvation must be received by oneself. In that sense, it is conditional.
This is not to say that any of this can happen without the initiative and work of God. That is what is meant in 2:23 when Luke writes that “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (ESV) We remain lost sinners in spiritual darkness without this divine work. Yet, there is Holy Spirit power in the message, which is the Holy Spirit at work in the hearer. But the response is not determinative nor exclusive to certain “elect” individuals. A ‘response’ that is predetermined, irresistible, and caused by God alone is not genuine. This kind of Calvinist salvific determinism is nowhere testified to in this passage.
Acts 3:17-19, 22-
“And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out…” (ESV)
When men act in ignorance or willful rejection, nevertheless, God fulfills his purposes through them because he foreknows what they will freely do. Yet even though what God foretold would happen by his prophets is fulfilled through those acts of ignorance and rejection, Peter still views their situation regarding their eternal destiny as an open, not a closed, issue. Again, verse 19 reads,
“Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out…”
They still have time to respond to the message and be saved. So, the point is that Peter did not view God’s activity in this historical situation as in contradiction with human freedom and responsibility. Therefore, we can conclude that Peter did not view the fulfillment of what God foretold the prophets – that Christ would suffer – as a “meticulous divine providence” or universal divine causal determinism. He understood the interaction and intersection of events regarding the suffering of Jesus as God’s plan and purpose brought about by men who were responsible for their actions. Now, we reconcile those two things via God’s foreknowledge, which did not cause the “Men of Israel” to do what they did. That God knows what men would freely do does not logically require a universal divine causal determinism (i.e., Calvinism). Peter is obviously not thinking deterministically. His words and actions reveal that. The people are to “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out…” (3:19, NIV). The CSB has “Therefore repent and turn back…”
With respect to verses 22-23 and Jesus being the prophet foretold by Moses, Peter affirms the ultimatum given, which is especially applicable to the Jew.
“For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.” (Acts 3:22-23, NIV / Deut. 18:15,18,19)
Here we have contingency, human decision, and responsibility once again. In Acts, we read these words of Moses being fulfilled. The Jews are rejecting their “prophet,” that is, their Messiah. Those who do not listen to him will be “completely cut off from the people.”
Note verse 26, which reads, “God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.” The idea that God intends to bless “every one of you” conflicts with the Calvinist’s decree that limits blessing to certain unconditionally elected individuals. And we see here a pattern throughout Acts that when Paul brings the gospel to the Gentiles, he proclaims it to the Jews first in their synagogues (cf. Rom. 1:16). But the pattern is that the Jews reject it and persecute Paul and his companions. Therefore, they go to the Gentiles. This is a gracious opportunity of salvation with the gospel being given to God’s chosen people first. (Acts 3:25-26, 9:20, 29; 11:19; 13:5, 14:1; 17:1-3, 10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8; cf. 28:17) We may also note from our Old Testament survey that being among the elect people of God does not guarantee a positive response to God or, in the New Testament, acceptance of his offer of eternal life in Christ. Again, in the gospels and in Acts, we find that the elect Jews continually rejected Jesus and the gospel and persecuted Paul and his companions. (See Acts 4:1-2, 11, 16-18, 21; 5:17, 33, 40: 7:54, 57-58; 9:4:13:45, 50: 14:2, 5, 19; 17:5, 13; 18:12, 17; 19:9; 20:3; 21:11, 27, 30-36; 22:19, 22, 30; 23:12-15; 24:5; 25:7, 24; 28:25-28) But not all the Jews were resistant to the gospel. Many believed. (See 2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7; 8:12; 9:35; 14:1; 15:5; 17:4, 10-12; 18:19-20; 19:17-18; 21:20; 22:19; 28:24).
Acts 4:4
“But many of those who heard the word believed…” (ESV)
Interestingly, this is a complimentary statement to 13:48. Here, early on Acts, Peter and John are dealing primarily and initially with the Jews in Jerusalem (“Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem” (2:14), “Men of Israel” (2:22; 3:12), “Brothers” (2:29; 3:17), “all the house of Israel” (2:36), “Rulers of the people and elders” (4:8), “all the people of Israel” (4:10). We have not come to the issue of Gentile salvation yet. Hence, here we have the simple statement that many of those who heard the gospel believed. Note that it is a simple statement – those who heard the word believed. There is no mention here of being “appointed to” or even “disposed to,” let alone “predestined to,” eternal life. If we take this early statement of Luke as the process and means by which one is saved, then salvation comes to those who hear the gospel and believe it (cf. Rom. 10:14-21). They are those who have faith. Then why the “appointed to” or “disposed to” in 13:48? It is because in chapter 13, there is a shift in Paul’s gospel ministry from an emphasis on the Jews to the full inclusion of the Gentiles. So, the historically, the ministry situation has changed. This change influenced Luke’s description of salvation in verse 48. Luke’s description captures the magnitude of the joy the Gentiles had upon hearing that they, too, can be saved by faith in Jesus. In Acts 10 and 11 we read that the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out “even on the Gentiles” (11:45, ESV), and that the Gentiles had also “received the word of God,” (11:1, ESV), and that Peter was told by the Spirit to go to speak to the Gentile Cornelius “making no distinction,” (11:12, ESV), and to declare “a message by which [he] will be saved.” (11:14, ESV) Moreover, the Gentiles recieved from the Holy Spirit the same “gift” that God gave to the apostles and brothers throughout Judea “when [they] believed in the Lord Jesus Christ.” (11:16, ESV) The conlcusion therefore was that they “glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (11:18, ESV) The point is that God had to show to Peter, the apostles, and the Jews in Judea that he has included them in the salvation found in Jesus Christ. And yet, those scattered by the persecution over Stephen were “speaking the word to no one except Jews” (11:19, ESV). Therefore, the context of chapters 10 and 11 tells us much about both the inclusion of the Gentiles and the simplicity of salvation by faith. Given the magnitude of the revelation of God’s inclusion of the Gentiles, Luke can emphasize this divine intent for the Gentiles in chapter 13 when Paul shifts his ministry to the Gentile world. So Luke, wanting to emphasize this as God’s intent for the Gentiles, reports this matter with the words in 13:48. Yet he also affirms the nature of salvation as simply being by faith, as he describes it throughout Acts before chapter 13. So at this crucial point in their ministry, Luke in effect writes, “Now, from among the Gentiles who were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord upon hearing that the message of salvation was to be brought to them as it was to the Jews, as many as were prepared for eternal life believed, in contrast to the Jews who rejected the message in unbelief.” This, along with the two other paraphrases I gave above, captures Luke’s intent in accord with the context. The Gentiles’ disposition of rejoicing and gladness, in contrast to the Jews’ disposition of jealousy and rejection, was noteworthy for Luke as to who would believe and have eternal life and who would not. So, when interpreted in context, there is nothing here to affirm the Calvinists’ doctrines of predestination or unconditional election. From what we have seen of the contingent nature of the message and the need for a personal faith response to it, as in this verse too, we have no reason to think there is a hidden decree behind the report that many of those who heard the word believed.
Acts 5:1-11
“But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” (ESV)
We need not belabor the point of the explicit human freedom highlighted here in Ananias’ choices and the options that Ananias had at his disposal. The clear implication of this text is that it is not the case, as the Calvinist claims, that all things are predetermined by God. Again, little needs to be said here about this situation being incoherent with Calvinism’s theistic determinism. Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. If God predetermined Ananias to do this, then through Ananias God lied to himself, which is nonsense.
Acts 7:51
“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.”
Clearly, Stephen understands that the Spirit himself would have the Jews respond positively to the work of God in “the coming of the Righteous One.” (v. 52) Note that their hearts and ears are not in a spiritually sensitive condition to listen and respond, not because God has predestined them to be that way, but because they have made themselves that way by always resisting the Holy Spirit. This is consistent with our interpretation of 13:48.
Acts 8:21-22
In these verses, Simon the magician, who believed and was baptized (8:13) but wanted to buy the ability to enable people to receive the Holy Spirit, is challenged by Peter, who tells him his “heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.”
Note the emphasis on the disposition of his “heart.” Simon’s heart was caught in bitterness and iniquity, and Peter exhorts him to repent and pray. Luke emphasizes the condition of the heart of those who hear the message.
Acts 10:1, 2, 22, and 31
Cornelius is described as “a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.” (10:1-2, ESV)
Note that Cornelius was among those who “feared God.” In verse 22, he is described as “an upright and God-fearing man.” Here again, we see Luke emphasizing the disposition of the heart in people who seek God (cf. 17:27, 30). This account is a major turning point in Acts. One interpretation of 13:48 is therefore, “Those who are seeking God, that is, those who are disposed to eternal life, believed.” God will bring the message of the “good news” to all, but especially to those who desire eternal life, that is, those who are receptive and open to hearing and believing the message. This emphasis on readiness of heart is also supported by Acts 15:8-9, where we read,
“And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.” (ESV)
An interesting comparison is found in Acts 8:9-25 with Simon Magus, the magician who “…himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip” (8:13, ESV). Simon wanted to buy the ability for people to receive the evidence of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 8: 21, Peter points out Simon’s problem as “your heart is not right with God.” In verse 22, Peter exhorts him to “Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.” (ESV)
Again, we see the emphasis on the condition of one’s heart in Peter’s exhortation to repentance. We also find it in Luke’s gospel when the criminal crucified next to Jesus rebukes the other criminal with the words, “Do you not fear God…” (Lu. 23:40, ESV) And we find that this person is open to Jesus and his message of the kingdom when he says, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (23:42, ESV). To this man’s expression of simple faith in Jesus, Jesus then responds, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (23:43, ESV) All this simply does not fit coherently with the Calvinists’ universal divine causal determinism.
Acts 10:28
“And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.” (ESV)
Here we have highlighted the severity of the Jew/Gentile division that developed in Israel, while also seeing how that wall of division was broken down by God himself. Thus, we have an indication of God’s loving, saving disposition towards the Gentiles. Luke highlights that they, too, are among those “appointed” to eternal life, but not apart from believing. Also, the context indicates that faith is not predetermined by God for a limited number of persons. This is supported by the following verses.
Acts 10:34-35
“Peter began to speak: “Now I truly understand that God doesn’t show favoritism, but in every nation the person who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”” (CSB)
Here we have a particularly clear statement about God showing “no partiality.” The Calvinist will have to demonstrate what it is about one person that precludes them from salvation, yet something about another person that motivated God to unconditionally elect them to be saved. And, if there is nothing in these persons that motivates God to elect one over another, then, more importantly, what is it about God that causes him to make such distinctions about our eternal destinies? What is it about God that causes him to act with favoritism? Peter states, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” (10:34-35, ESV) This statement is universal (i.e., “in every nation” and “anyone“). It also lays out the criteria for acceptance with God, which is “to fear God” and “[do] what is right.” Calvinism’s inherent divine partiality or favoritism must be grounded in something other than God if, as this text indicates, it is not grounded in God himself. But surely it is not grounded in anything inherent in the sinners themselves, for we are all sinners. So, if there is no favoritism in God himself, perhaps he has ordained that his human creatures have free will, and, as such, he has also ordained that “anyone who fears him and does what is right” God looks favorably upon, that is, those who have a heart attitude or disposition of humble surrender to God. They are “acceptable” to him. This is what we find throughout Scripture. The response of faith is what God seeks. It is a response to God’s work of salvation in Christ found in the proclamation of the “good news.” Hence, God is sovereignly at work in salvation, that is, he determines that salvation will be “in Christ” and that the message will go forth through the church he is establishing. The message “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Rom. 1:16,17, ESV) The Holy Spirit in the gospel message enables a positive response. It is up to the person to accept or reject that message. Therefore, faith, as the core disposition of the acts of repentance and baptism, is the sole condition for salvation.
If the Calvinist insists that each person’s salvation is grounded in God’s will alone, he must face the problem of arbitrariness in God. This would make God’s goodness and justice unrecognizable to us, which reduces to “God is we know not what.” If the Calvinist states that it is nothing in the person, but solely in God’s will as to why one person is elect and another made reprobate, that is, that the reasons are hidden from us, and it is God who wills it to be so, then the Calvinist runs up against making God arbitrary. But if the Calvinist then insists that God only wills what is in accord with his nature, we run up against the incoherence of such unconditional election with what is logically reasonable and morally intuitive. And in the end, that route leads us to knowing little to nothing at all about the true nature and character of God. In other words, it is impossible to reconcile the Calvinist doctrines with the biblical teachings that God is love and God is just. How is it that God is just to condemn people for the sin he predetermined and caused them to commit? How is it that God loves the non-elect whom he has unconditionally assigned to eternal punishment in hell merely by willing it to be so?[37]
Acts 10: 42, 43
“And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
The word “appointed” here (horizo) is different than tasso in Acts 13:48. It means to “divide” or “separate.” “Everyone who believes in him” clearly indicates that faith is an unlimited and universal possibility. Anyone may believe, given the definition of the message as “good news” and its content as a call to come and be saved. But we have seen that people’s hearts must be right to accept the message. That is up to the person themselves. The prophets bear witness to a universal salvation in Jesus. Those who believe are “in Christ” and thus saved. Therefore, as many as were disposed to eternal life or desired to have eternal life believed. And these believers also become the elect or chosen people of God (1 Pet. 2:9-10).
Acts 15:9-11
Peter says the following about the conversion of the Gentiles,
“He [God] did not discriminate between us [Jews] and them [Gentiles], for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (NIV)
God did not “discriminate.” He made “no distinction” (CSB). This speaks about salvation for both the Jews and Gentiles. And in that these two groups represent everyone, that is, they are made up of the individuals in them, this salvation extends to each and every person in those groups. Given that the “good news” of salvation is for whoever will come to Christ, a continued Jewish exceptionalism led to religious and cultural barriers that had to be broken down (cf. Eph. 1-3). If this is so, would Scripture lead us to believe that there is another divine discrimination or distinction as to who is part of “the elect people of God” and who is not? As to who is predestined to eternal life and who is not? Given the proclamation of “good news” to all, is there a divine decision and distinction about who will and will not be saved that is ultimately inaccessible to us? The Bible does not teach or support such an understanding of salvation or election as the above and following verses indicate.
Acts 17:27-31
“And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for
“‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’”
Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed;..” (ESV)
Yes, God determines many things. That is his prerogative as the sovereign Creator. Here God acts determinatively with respect to the geographical history of mankind, yet it is for the purpose “that they should seek God…and find him.” (v. 27) Contrary to Calvinism’s doctrine of “total inability,” by which they claim no one seeks God, this verse is clear. Men may and should seek God (Deut. 4:29; 1 Chron. 28:9; 2 Chron 15:12-13, Ps. 53:2; Heb. 11:6; Rom. 3:11, et al.) And the fact that “he is actually not far from each one of us” implies that he desires to be found and known by us.
Moreover, “…we are indeed his offspring.” Wouldn’t the Father of us all therefore love all his children? Paul goes on to emphasize the personal nature of God and that his desire is that all people would be saved, for he “now commands all people everywhere to repent.” Note “all people” means everyone. And “all people everywhere” refers to the universal nature of salvation. It reaches all persons in every geographical location, that is, in the whole world (cf. Jn. 3:16). God commands them to repent. For this to be a genuinely sincere command, God must have made provision that each person may be saved. Salvation has universal potential because God has acted decisively and finally in Christ, and he is the one “appointed” (horizo, not tasso) to judge the world. This repentance and judgment imply personal responsibility and culpability. It implies significant human freedom. Again, all this makes no sense from within the theistic determinism of Calvinism. And when the Calvinist claims that Paul is teaching their doctrines elsewhere (e.g., Rom. 9-11, Eph. 1, Jn. 6, etc.), that would be to present Paul as theologically confused and contradicting himself. We are surveying Acts to demonstrate that the doctrines Calvinists assign to Paul’s words are not what Paul believes or teaches.
Acts 26:19
“Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,…” (ESV)
Paul himself speaks of the potential for him to have been disobedient to God’s “appointment” (prochieros, not tasso) as “a servant and witness” (26:16). If it were not a real possibility, it would have been nonsense for Paul to have talked about his potential to have disobeyed. This is the same Paul of whom Ananias said, “The God of our fathers appointed (prochieros, not tasso) you to know his will…” (22:14), and Paul said of himself that God set him apart before he was born. (Gal. 1:15) Is Paul’s remark about the potential for disobedience even given his “appointment” a true possibility within the dynamic of divine activity and human freedom, or is it merely a meaningless statement within the context of an exhaustive, theistic determinism? I take Paul to be stating a truth. Therefore, his disobedience was a real possibility, and his “appointment” was not deterministic.
Furthermore, within Calvinist determinism, all Paul’s actions before his “heavenly vision” would have been caused by God himself. God, therefore, would have been working against himself and his purposes in Christ Jesus. Paul testifies to Agrippa, “I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many of the saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme, and in raging fury against them I persecuted them even to foreign cities.” (Acts 26:9-11, ESV)
Then Jesus intervenes in Paul’s life. Obviously, Paul’s persecution of Christians was not what God predetermined for Paul to do. Calvinism, due to its theistic determinism, cannot present a logically and morally coherent explanation of these various accounts and personal dynamics found in Scripture.
Acts 28: 23-28
“When they [the local leaders of the Jews] had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. And some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved. And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:
“‘Go to this people, and say,
“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed;
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’
Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.” (ESV)
Note several things here about Paul’s ministry strategy, having finally reached Rome. First, Paul speaks to the Jews first, as was his usual custom, for the Jews, as God’s elect people, were to be given priority to hear and receive the gospel precisely because they were to be a light to the Gentiles.
Secondly, Paul “expounded to them” about the kingdom of God and Jesus from the Law of Moses and the Prophets with the aim of convincing them. It appears that Paul’s mindset is that there certainly is potential for those hearing the message to believe.
Thirdly, some were convinced, but others “disbelieved.” And it is to those who “disbelieved” that Paul quotes Isaiah. Note that the prophecy is addressing the people of Israel collectively, and yet the prophet emphasizes the disposition of one’s heart, which takes on an individual sense. “This people’s heart has grown dull.” This mindset of the importance of the collective group and the flexibility to view the individual, not as lost in the collective, but as an integral part of it, is important to appreciate for interpretive purposes.
Fourthly, God was expecting a positive response from his people as his elect. But they do not respond to him even though they are his elect. Note, therefore, the personal responsibility for their blindness – “their eyes they have closed.” And when Isaiah says, “lest they should…,” he is indicating once again the potential for repentance. The passage implies real contingency and, therefore, the responsibility of each individual. But once dullness of heart and spiritual blindness and deafness set in, it is very difficult to “turn.” Yet, most importantly, we see God’s desire. It is that if they would “turn,” he would heal them. Again, a contingent reality. But since they reject the message, Paul announces, with the emphasis on God’s sovereign “appointment” of the Gentiles as a group to salvation by faith, that “this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.” This refers to the Gentiles collectively, and yet with respect to their salvation by faith, the individual is in view. Collectively, the Gentiles are more prone to listen than the Jews, who are now hardened. Paul’s view is that the Jews are culpable for their rejection.
We can also refer to Acts 13:51, where the phrase “They shook the dust off their feet as a warning to them…” contains this idea of responsibility and judgment.
Conclusions
So, we see many of the dynamics of divine sovereignty and human freedom throughout the book of Acts, but nothing here that rises to the level of a universal divine causal determinism (i.e., Calvinism) regarding the salvation of individuals.
Luke views what is happening in the spread of the gospel and with the Gentiles in the context of God’s sovereign workings. It was always in God’s plans and purposes to include all people (i.e., the Jews and the Gentiles) in the salvation God accomplished “in Christ.” (cf. Eph. 1) In contrast to the Jews who were at that time rejecting God’s salvation, the Gentiles were “disposed to” or “arranged themselves” (middle voice) for eternal life. Now that they had received the good news, they rejoiced and believed it, the emphasis upon which is believing, because Luke puts it as the very first word in the controversial phrase of verse 48.
Acts 13:48 In Its Immediate Context
The most obvious problem for the Calvinists’ deterministic interpretation of Acts 13:48 will be the inescapable genuine voluntariness, along with the responsibility and culpability in the immediate context. These dynamics are explicit in the jealousy, blasphemy, contradiction of the gospel, and rejection by the Jews of “the word of God” in verses 45-47. Moreover, Paul boldly chides them for rejecting the gospel, clearly indicating that he presupposes free will. He communicates that the message is for these Jews and the situation is an open one in which they should and can believe. Paul is no ‘Calvinist.’ The Calvinists’ theology is nowhere to be found in Paul’s epistles. These attitudes and actions are incoherent with the Calvinists’ deterministic interpretation of Acts 13:48. Let’s examine the verse in context, the ignorance of which is a perpetual interpretive error among Calvinists.
We have examined the verse within the broader context of the whole book of Acts. We concluded that the Calvinists’ interpretation of this and other verses in Acts is unjustified. We must also examine the verse within the immediate context. We should start at verse 13. Paul and “his companions” end up in Pisidian Antioch, in the central highlands of Asia Minor, in the province of Galatia. As was Paul’s practice, he brought the gospel to the Jews first (2:22, 36, 3:26, 5:20, 9:20, 13:5, 14, esp. 13:46, 17:1, 10; 18:4, 28:25-28). So, on the Sabbath, he went into the synagogue, heard the Law and Prophets read, and was then invited to speak a word of encouragement for the people (v. 15). So, Paul stood up and began with the words, “Fellow Israelites and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me!” (v. 16, NIV) The ESV has “Men of Israel and you who fear God, listen.” (v. 16, ESV) This reference to Gentiles who worship God or these God-fearing Gentiles is an important theme in the book of Acts. One of Luke’s primary concerns is to highlight how the gospel went out to the Gentiles (10:45, 11:1, 18; see 13:46, 18:6, 28:28). The message was received by these “God-fearers.” This fact was key for properly interpreting another controversial verse, Acts 18:10. This early mission to spread the gospel into new frontiers is orchestrated at crucial points by angels (5:19, 8:26, 10:3, 12:7, 27:23) and the Holy Spirit (1:2, 8, 2:4, 4:8, 25, 6:5, note 7:51, 55, 9:31, 10:19, 45, 11:12, 13:2, 4, 15:28, esp. 16:6-10, 20:23, 21:11, cf. 16:6, 7, and 10). Throughout Acts, Luke places a special emphasis on the divine intentionality in this regard. This is why verses like 13:48 and 18:10 may be misunderstood as affirming a theological determinism. Luke fully grasps the importance of Gentile inclusion in salvation. The whole of Acts chapter 10 and half of chapter 11 is spent telling us about how God convinced Peter that he should not call any person common or unclean (10:28), that God shows no partiality (10:34), that “in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (10:35), and how “they put him [Jesus] to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day…” (10:39-40). Finally, Peter states, “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (10:43, NIV) And here is where the contrast to Jewish rejection becomes important. For the most part, the Jews rejected the gospel and persecuted Paul and his companions, but among the Gentiles, the gospel was gladly welcomed and believed. Luke records that among the Gentiles (and some Jews) there were those who feared and worshiped God (cf. 13:16 and 26), that is, those who are humble, open, and thirsting for the truth and salvation. These are people like Theophilus (1:1, cf. Lu. 1:3-4), the Israelites (2:37-41), the five thousand (4:4), the people and priests in Jerusalem (6:7), the Samaritans (8:12), the Ethiopian eunuch (8:34-38), Tabitha (Dorcas, who was raised to life. Note 9:36), Cornelius (10:1-2, 22), the Hellenists (Greek-speaking Jews or non-Jews, 11:20-21), Sergius Paulus (13:7, 12), the “many Jews and devout converts to Judaism” (13:43), the Jews and Greeks at Iconium (14:1, note presence of “unbelieving Jews” in v. 2), the crippled man in Lystra (14:9), Lyddia (16:14), the Philippian jailer (16:30-34), the Jews, devout Greeks and leading women at Thessalonica (17:4), Jason (17:6-7), the Jews, Greek women of high standing, and men in Berea (17:12), Dionysius the Areopagite, Damaris, and others in Athens (17:34), Titius Justus and Crispus (18:7, 8). The point is that Luke records that the Gentiles were receptive to Paul’s message, which brings us to 13:48. Here the narrative shifts from the gospel mission mainly among the Jews, with Cornelius as the first Gentile convert, to the gospel now going forth into the Gentile world. All these factors will influence how we interpret 13:48.
Returning to our immediate context, Paul reviews Israel’s history up to David and says, “From this man’s descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised.” (v. 23) In our Old Testament historical study of election, we saw the important role “promise” played. After telling the people about John the Baptist’s preparation for the coming of Jesus, in verse 26 Paul says, “Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent.” (v. 26, NIV) Paul can see that these people are receptive to the gospel, so Paul speaks a word of encouragement, telling them that the message of salvation has been sent to them. But first, he tells them that “the people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath.” (v. 27, NIV) Jesus was falsely accused and tried, was put to death and buried, but “God raised him from the dead” (v. 30, NIV). Because of these historical facts, Paul begins to unfold for them the “good news,” that is, the result of those facts. In verse 32, Paul states, “And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus…” (v. 32, ESV). Again, Paul’s custom was to bring the gospel to the Jews first. But, as pointed out above, it is important to observe the presence of “God-fearing Gentiles” among these Jews, who are the “children of Abraham.” These Gentiles were proselytes to Judaism. They believed in the God of the patriarchs and associated themselves with the people of Israel. Note that it is also to them that “the message of salvation has been sent.”
Paul now moves to the topic of the resurrection of Jesus. Two more times in verses 34 and 37, for emphasis, Paul states, “God raised him up…” Paul supports his soteriology of the resurrection of Jesus with verses from the Old Testament (Ps. 2:7; Isa. 55:3; and Ps. 16:10). He then clearly states the salvific implications of the resurrection.
“Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.” (vv. 38-39, NIV)
Note the phrase “everyone who believes.” The Calvinist would have to say that only those who are unconditionally elected to salvation can believe. But is that Paul’s theological perspective when he refers to “everyone who believes”? Not at all. That would have to be read into the text! Here Paul’s gospel of justification by faith is clearly set forth. This gospel is universal, not unconditional, limited, or exclusive. It is universal because “the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.” The words “to you” are a proclamation without reservation or limitation. It is to the “Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God” that “the message of salvation” had been sent (13:26, ESV). This universality is reinforced by the words “everyone who believes” (13:38, ESV). The gospel applies to “everyone.” This phrase also adds the dynamic of faith to the universality of the gospel message. Faith is the condition by which one is justified, that is, “set free from every sin.” Hence, by saying “everyone who believes,” Paul has opened up the gospel of salvation to all persons. So, even before we reach verse 48, we know what gospel Paul believes and preaches. It does not and cannot secretly contain the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. The context has already eliminated that possibility, and so do these verses. This is why context is crucial.
And that context continues to defeat a Calvinist interpretation of verse 48 because in verses 40 and 41, Paul gives them a warning, quoting Habakkuk 1:5, saying,
“Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you:
“‘Look, you scoffers,
wonder and perish,
for I am going to do something in your days
that you would never believe,
even if someone told you.’” (Acts 13:40-41, NIV)
What is the sense of this warning unless there were two options open to these people. One was to scoff, wonder, and perish. That is what will happen to them if they refuse to believe, even though the message was preached to them, as Paul was doing right then and there. The other option was to not let that happen. It was to believe. They all had a choice to make. Paul says, “Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you.” Clearly, free will is implied here, marked by the ability of contrary choice. Paul considers a person’s eternal destiny to be undetermined and contingent upon their response to what God was doing in Jesus Christ. Clearly, Paul understands that people have free will, that is, they are in control of their wills and decisions and can choose among available options. This passage makes no sense otherwise. It makes no sense given the universal divine causal determinism of Calvinism. But some heeded Paul’s warning. In verses 42 and 43, the text goes on to say,
“As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath. When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.” (Acts 13:42-43, NIV)
Many were receptive to Paul’s gospel. So much so that Luke tells us in verse 44 that “On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.” (NIV)
But some opposed Paul and his companions. Verse 45 reads, “When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy. They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him.” (NIV) Note that it was the Jews who were abusing and insulting Paul. They were contradicting his message. Therefore, Paul and Barnabas respond to them. In verses 46 and 47, the text says,
“Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us:
“‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
Noteworthy here is that both uses of “you” are singular in the Greek. Although originally speaking about Isaiah, it seems that Paul is enlisting this verse to state the purpose of his own ministry. God has made Paul (and his companions) a light for the Gentiles, that he may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.” But also, this surely has reference to Israel (i.e., “the Jews”) for the prophet Isaiah stated God’s purpose for them. Their purpose was to “bring salvation to the ends of the earth.” ( Isa, 49:6) But notice the pattern and the response here. The pattern was for Paul to bring the gospel to the Jews first because Israel was to serve God, as his elect or chosen people, to be a “light for the Gentiles” and “bring salvation to the ends of the earth.” But note their response. As pointed out above, the Jews were “filled with jealousy” because Paul and Barnabas were drawing crowds of people (v. 45). Indeed, “almost the whole city” gathered to “hear the word of the Lord.” (v.44) Moreover, they were jealous because they perceived that God was also extending grace to the Gentiles. And this will be the crux of the matter for verse 48. Paul was telling his own people, God’s elect and chosen people, the hard truth about themselves. They were rejecting their own God’s word to them, that is, the same God that they claimed to be their God. Paul was telling them that they had so lost touch with the God of their fathers, so much so that they had rejected “the word of God,” that is, the gospel message of their salvation. Thus, Paul concludes in verse 46 the following about the Jews,
“We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life…” (NIV)
Or,
“It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first. Since you reject it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life…” (CSB)
The Phillips translation has,
“At this Paul and Barnabas did not mince their words but said, “We felt it our duty to speak the message of God to you first, but since you spurn it and evidently do not think yourselves fit for eternal life…”
It is important to see that this rejection is their own responsibility. It was something that they considered or judged about themselves. The reasoning and words of Paul here are in direct contradiction with the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election, showing the doctrine to be a false teaching. It is also critical to observe that Paul understood that their rejection would impact their eternal destinies or “eternal life.” So, what does Paul say after this? He states,
“Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.” (NIV)
Or,
“Since you reject it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we are turning to the Gentiles.” (CSB)
The Phillips translation has,
“…since you spurn it and evidently do not think yourselves fit for eternal life, watch us now as we turn to the Gentiles!”
“We now turn to the Gentiles.” This is a profoundly radical statement given the theological history of the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. The message was that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was also the God of the Gentiles, and he was including them as part of his “elect” people via the same response of faith that Abraham exhibited of which it is said that God “counted it to him as righteousness.” (Gen. 15:6) The Jews understood themselves to be a privileged people in a privileged relationship to God. The Jews were the people of God. The Gentiles were not. As true as that was historically, they lost sight of the purpose God intended for them as the “elect people of God.” Contrary to God’s intention that through the Jews God’s salvation would go to all the earth, they became proud of their privileged position in history and selfishly possessive of the truth God revealed to them. They misunderstood the purpose of their election, which was to reveal the one true God and bring the gospel to all people everywhere. They were not elected or chosen for individual salvation.[38] They were elected or chosen to bring the gospel to all the nations of the earth. Contrary to this, they had developed a mindset of theistic exclusivity which was not reflective of the love God has for all people and that God’s grace and “generosity” would also extend to those who have not “labored” with God from the beginning of his work.[39]
So, the Jews, already filled with jealousy because of the amount of people coming to hear Paul, were also angry because Paul told them the hard truth that they rejected God’s word to them and that he would now bring it to the Gentiles.
It will be helpful here to know that Acts can be divided up into six sections. They are:
- The Primitive Church in Jerusalem, Early Preaching, Common Life, and Opposition. 1:1 – 6:7
- The First Geographical Expansion Carried out by The Hellenists to Diaspora Jews, Samaritans, and a Proselyte (the Ethiopian Eunuch), and Saul’s Conversion. 6:8 – 9:31
- First Expansion to the Gentiles. Cornelius’ Conversion as Directed by God. 9:32 – 12:24
- The First Geographical Expansion into the Gentile World, The Jews Regularly Reject the Gospel, The Jerusalem Council Accepts and Affirms the Nature of the Salvation of the Gentiles 12:25 – 16:5
- Further Geographical Expansion into the Gentile World, Greece, and Europe. 16:6 – 19:20
- Paul in Ephesus, Travels Through Macedonia and Greece, then on to Rome. 19:21 – 28-31
Our text lands within section 3, which marks the first major geographical expansion of the gospel into the Gentile world, with the Jews regularly rejecting Paul’s message. This is highly significant for interpreting 13:48 because, as we saw above, Paul announced to the Jews the shift of his ministry to the Gentiles. Both Paul’s stern words to the Jews (v. 46) and now his rejection of them by “turning to the Gentiles,” and later shaking the dust off their feet against them (v. 51), further enraged the Jewish leaders who “worked upon the feelings of religious and respectable women and some of the leading citizens, and succeeded in starting a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from the district.” (v. 50, JBP)
What is also important in the context of this first geographical expansion into the Gentile world was that Paul identified this move as prophetically sanctioned by God by quoting Isaiah 49:6. “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” This was reassuring to the Gentiles. It was telling them that it was always God’s intention for them to be included in the divine plan of salvation in Jesus. But the Jews could not tolerate this, revealing the wretched disposition of their hearts. The Jews, in effect, were spurning the very will of God in salvation for both them and the Gentiles. And it is here that we finally reach verse 48, which is Luke’s interpretation of the Gentiles’ response to this important shift in ministry. In the midst of the Gentiles’ great rejoicing in contrast to the Jewish rejection, given the many factors already discussed above, I contend that Luke’s perception and intent are best captured in the following optional paraphrases.
“When the Gentiles heard the prophecy of Isaiah which revealed that God fully intended that they too be included in his plan of salvation, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as were disposed to receive eternal life believed.”
“Now the Gentiles, when they heard Paul quote Isaiah who foretold that the message of salvation was to be brought to them, began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord. And those Gentiles who wanted eternal life, upon hearing the gospel, believed.
“Now, from among the Gentiles who were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord upon hearing that the message of salvation was to be brought to them as it was to the Jews, as many as were prepared for eternal life believed, in contrast to the Jews who rejected the message in unbelief.”
Recall back in verse 16, how Paul began his address. “Fellow Israelites and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me!” Along with “fellow Israelites (i.e., Jews), Paul includes “Gentiles who worship God.” (NIV) Note again that in verse 26 Paul associates the “God -fearing Gentiles” with the “fellow children of Abraham” (i.e., the Jews). These were Gentiles with receptive hearts. They were “Gentiles who worshipped God” as proselytes to Judaism. But even then, they were not Jews. They were not descendants of Abraham. They stood outside the covenant promises. They could join in the worship of God, but they were not members of the “elect” or “chosen people of God.” Yet, they were seeking God, but not any god. They were seeking the God of Israel, the only true God. Now, those of this character, those who are seeking to know God, those who are so disposed, God will fulfill their search for knowledge by bringing them the “good news” about Jesus Christ. God honors their desire to know the true God. And, of course, that true God was not only revealed in the Old Testament history, law, and the prophets, but has now been revealed in Jesus. So, to these “God-fearing Gentiles,” these “Gentiles who worship God,” God will provide the knowledge of salvation in Jesus Christ. God wants all persons to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-4). Therefore, God will fulfill their desire to know Him by bringing them the “good news” so that they may believe and be saved.
Now, this is certain to happen because of the faithfulness of God to those who seek to know him. It is the Father’s intent to bring them to Jesus in the gospel (Jn. 6:37-48). Therefore, Luke can appropriately describe these Gentiles as “disposed to” or “desiring” eternal life.
What about the Bible versions that translate tetagmenoi as “appointed to”? It is difficult to justify this interpretation in this context. Without the input of the context as discussed above, tetagmenoi becomes ambiguous, and to solve this ambiguity, we cannot simply choose a definition from among the legitimate options. We have to let the context choose for us. Luke chose this word, not for its ambiguity, but because it fits the context, that is, when defined as “disposed to” and not “appointed to” or other more deterministic renderings.
Here we can say a brief word about people seeking God. Calvinists claim that because of Rom. 3:11, no one can seek God. They therefore have developed a doctrine to secure their misinterpretation of this verse. That is the Calvinist doctrine of “total depravity” or “total inability.” All I can say here is that the context is important for the proper interpretation of this verse. Even verses 9 and 10 lend important information as to the point Paul is making. Furthermore, the Calvinist would have to deal with the many verses in context that clearly tell us that people can and should seek God (see Acts 17:26-27; Isa. 55:6, also Deut. 4:29; 1 Chr. 16:10-11, 28:9; Ps. 9:10, 24:5-6, 63:1, 70:4).
So, the rejection by the Jews of the gospel became the opportunity for the Gentiles to hear, receive, and believe the gospel (foreshadowing Romans 11). Although this was unfortunate regarding the Jews (something Paul will explain in Romans 9-11), the Gentiles were overjoyed at the news that Paul would now “turn” and bring the gospel to them. They were ecstatic at God’s love and grace shown to them. They were now included in the salvation that was once restricted to the Jews.
And this is a major purpose for Luke writing the book of Acts. As outlined in the six sections above, Luke records the movement of the gospel from Jewish beginnings to the Gentiles, emphasizing God’s desire for everyone to believe and be saved (2:21, 36-41; 4:10-12; 5:14; 6:7; 8:12, 34-35; 11:18; et al.). And there were many persons who wanted that salvation and were ready for it (ch. 10). In contrast, there are those who rejected that salvation (4:17-18; 5:17, 33, 40; 6:11-15; 7:51- 8:3; 9:23; et al.). Therefore, what we can say with confidence is that both those who are receptive to the gospel and those who reject the gospel are appointed or destined to certain ends. The former to eternal life, the latter to condemnation. This is not because God predestined them for these ends according to the Calvinist definition, or because of an unconditional election, but because they are believing or unbelieving; because they are receptive to God and the gospel or refuse to humble themselves to receive the “good news” of their salvation (1 Pet. 2:8, cf. Ps. 49:14; Jer. 15:2, 43:11; Lu. 2:34; 1 Cor. 2:7; Heb. 9:7).
The following passage from Robert W. Wall’s commentary on Acts will help in interpreting verse 48 within its context. Wall writes,
“Upon hearing Paul’s response to his Jewish opposition, the Gentiles” were glad and praised the word of the Lord.” The reader rightly assumes that these Gentiles are from Antioch and attached to its synagogue as either God fearers (vv. 16, 26) or devout proselytes (v. 43). Further, Luke’s division of people is not primarily along ethnic lines; thus here it might seem to indicate that the Gentiles happy response is inherently antisemitic. No more did all “the Gentiles” believe then did all “the Jews” reject the gospel. Luke typically divides audiences along religious lines according to their different responses to God’s promises. In this sense, then, the Gentiles of Antioch rejoice simply and rightly because Paul has come to them carrying the word of the Lord in fulfillment of Scripture’s prophecy that eschatological Israel would invite the nations to share in the blessings of its salvation.
The repetition of the phrase “word of the Lord/God” vv. 44, 46, 48-49: see also vv. 5, 7; 4:31; 6:7; 8:25; 11:1; 12:24), culminating in a summary of its triumph “through the region” (v. 49), concentrates the reader’s focus upon the message of salvation rather than on it prophetic messenger or on the ethnicity of his auditors; the message is the locus of God’s visitation among the Gentiles and the legitimate cause of their joy. It is this saving word that calls everyone to repentance and trust, and not the ethnicity of the community’s constituency; and so “as many as had been destined [passive, ἦσαν τεταγμένοι esan tetagmenoi] for eternal life became believers [ἐπίστευσαν episteusan].”
Barrett says about this hard text that it stands “as unqualified a statement of absolute predestination as is found anywhere in the NT.[40]”
And yet, Wall continues with the following observations that refute Barrett’s confidence that Luke’s statement here refers to Calvinist predestination.
“Two characteristics of salvation, consistently and constantly employed by Luke, qualify every definition of salvation found in Acts: The plan and history of God’s salvation are mapped by the prophecies of Scripture; and everyone who experiences salvation’s blessings does so because he or she has turned to God in faith. The joy of the Antiochene Gentiles springs from Paul’s inspired interpretation of Scripture that locates them in God’s plan of salvation.[41] Their faithful response to the word of the Lord results in eternal life (rather than in condemnation or nothing at all). Moreover, this inclusive salvation is the exclusive experience of all those who believe – whether Jew or Greek. The joy of these particular Gentiles, then, presumes they have believed the truth of the word of the Lord that Paul has delivered to them; and in accordance with the divine purpose they are made worthy of eternal life.”[42]
We cannot escape the biblical fact that faith is the responsibility of the one hearing the gospel. Many other philosophical, hermeneutical, and biblical truths, have been brought against Calvinism, but it is soundly defeated by the biblical witness to faith as the way one appropriates salvation. This failure of the Calvinist to acknowledge the overwhelming biblical evidence that faith is a possibility and requires a personal response to the gospel message and is not a “gift of God” (cf. Eph. 2:8) as logically required from the false doctrine of unconditional election, confirms, again, that Calvinists are notorious for willfully ignoring context in their exegesis and interpretations.
Wall continues to explain verse 50.
“The negative reaction toward Paul and Barnabas form a coalition of leading Jews and “devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city” is not surprising. The adjective σεβομέναὶ (sebomenai, “devout”), suggesting that the women were Jewish proselytes (see v. 43), combined with “the Jews” who instigated the protest, indicates that hostilities toward the Christian missionaries originated from within the synagogue and were motivated because of the leaders’ “jealousy” (see v. 45).”[43]
So, we conclude that the immediate context does not support the Calvinist interpretation of Acts 13:48. Therefore, the correct interpretation, or the best we can do with the information Luke gives us, will be the interpretation that takes into account all the biblical data that needs to be considered to come to the most plausible meaning of Lukes words here. We must make a cumulative case using all the elements of good interpretation and a responsible hermeneutic. What we do know is that on these criteria the Calvinist’s interpretation fails.
The Incoherence of the Calvinist Interpretation
On a Calvinist rendering, one would have to accept the interpretation that this “thrusting aside” of the gospel by the Jews and their judging themselves unworthy of eternal life, along with the jealousy that instigated the persecution of Paul and Barnabas, were all predetermined and therefore caused by God. Indeed, regarding their jealousy, it led to “blaspheming” of the type that “contradicted what was spoken by Paul.”(v. 45, NRSVUE) Because of Paul’s assessment and statements in this context, this surely could not be something that God predetermined and caused to occur either as a result of their non-election to salvation or as a general work of God’s sovereignty. If God did effectually cause this response, as the Calvinists’ eternal decree and sovereignty require, then it would put God at odds with his own message and his own nature. It is incoherent to think that God would be the cause of jealousy, blasphemy, and contradiction of his own gospel message.
Rather, given the nature of the response of Paul and Barnabas to the Jews, verse 46 clearly supports free will agency. Paul and Barnabas understood the situation as caused by the free-will actions of the Jews. Luke records, “And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.” (ESV) Surely it was not God himself who caused these Jews to “thrust aside” the word of God spoken to them.[44] It wasn’t God who judged them unworthy of eternal life. God wanted them to have eternal life. This would be incoherent with the definition, content, and purpose of the gospel as “good news” that Paul preached to them and encouraged them to believe. In addition, the Jews’ rejection of the gospel was not the plan of God for them; after all, they were his “elect” people. To them “has been sent the message of this salvation” (13:26, ESV). Paul’s response to the Jewish rejection indicates that it is they who “thrust it aside” and it is they who judge themselves “unworthy of eternal life.” Theologian Richard Watson writes that in Acts 13:48,
“…the persons here spoken of were the Gentiles to whom the apostles preached the Gospel, upon the Jews of the same place “putting it from them,” and “judging” or proving “themselves unworthy of eternal life.” But if the only reason why the Gentiles believed was, that that they were “ordained,” in the sense of personal predestination, “to eternal life;” then the reason why the Jews believed not was the want of such a predestinating act of God, and not as it is affirmed, an act of their own – the PUTTING IT AWAY from them.”[45]
Watson’s point and its implications are clear. There is an incoherence between the Calvinist view and the clear meaning of the text. Watson rightly deems this Calvinist incoherence hermeneutically unacceptable. If the Gentiles were predestined to eternal life, the Jews, given their rejection of the message, were obviously also predestined to their unbelief. But this is not what the context is communicating. Again, this passage clearly indicates that it is they who “thrust it aside” and judged “themselves” unworthy of eternal life.” Paul views the Jews themselves as culpable for their present rejection of salvation. But how can this be if the only way one can respond positively to the gospel is if they are predestined to do so? How can one be held accountable for failing to do that which they could never do? Paul’s ought implies can. This presents a logical and moral incoherence, which, again, is surely hermeneutically inadequate.
Rather, the situation for these Jews here is an open one in which they may be saved, and yet they reject the salvation offered them. It is God’s intention that they obtain eternal life. They very well could have eternal life but for their own culpable rejection of the message that brings the promise of eternal life to them. On Calvinism, this negative response would also be predetermined by God. But that is incoherent with Paul’s understanding of the situation and the clear meaning of his own response to them pointing out their culpability.
So, what is Luke’s meaning in Acts 13:48 in this context? A plausible interpretation, one I think is obvious from the context, is that Luke wants to emphasize the stark contrast between Jewish unbelief and Gentile belief. Ironically and sadly, the Jews, who, given their history, should have listened to the God of their fathers, and now to Paul, who is preaching the gospel of his Son to them, have judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. But again, ironically, but this time joyfully, the Gentiles, who have no history with God as Israel did, gladly embrace the gospel. Luke becomes their spokesperson and tells us in effect that, “…and as many of the Gentiles as judged themselves worthy of eternal life believed.” (v. 48) The contrast is obvious. The Jews, reflexively, that is, the Greek word ἀπωθεῖσθε (lit. “you reject”) being in the middle voice, are responsible for their rejection and unbelief. Furthermore, the reflexive nature of their actions is obvious in the phrase “and are judging yourselves (κρίνετε, pres., act., indic. of κρίνω) to be unworthy of eternal life.” Therefore, according to Luke’s definition of τεταγμένοι as “disposed to,” interpreted in the middle voice, he is telling us something about the Gentiles themselves. That is, as many as were “disposed to,” “arranged themselves,” “put themselves in place for,” “appointed themselves,” “were determined to obtain,” “were prepared to,” eternal life believed.
We should note at this point that the text has been speaking in terms of groups – the Jews and the Gentiles. The salvation of the individual comes into play only when faith or belief is mentioned.
Furthermore, we gain some insight into the true nature of election. How is it that the very “elect people of God” are the ones rejecting the salvation of God if election refers to the unconditional salvation of the individual? This is certainly problematic given the Calvinist understanding of election.[46] Suffice it to say here that election, with respect to every individual’s salvation and eternal destiny, must be something other than unconditional and predetermined.
Therefore, from Acts 13:48, we cannot construct a doctrine of election or predestination that teaches that before God created anything, he unconditionally decreed the salvation and damnation of every individual. That would be to ignore Paul’s words to the Jews and his understanding of the nature of their response.[47] So, as admittedly difficult as this verse is to exegete, we lean on both the immediate and the broader contexts, as well as the latitude of the grammar and definition of tetagmenoi to arrive at the best interpretation of this text. What we can say with confidence is that this verse does not support the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. One would have to ignore all these interpretive criteria to come up with the Calvinist interpretation of this verse.
The Assessment of A. T. Robertson – The Jews Oppose, The Gentiles Believe
Providing more textual evidence against the Calvinists’ interpretation, New Testament professor Archibald Thomas Robertson offers this assessment of Acts 13:48.
“48. As the Gentiles heard this they were glad (akounta ta ethnē echairon). Present active participle of akouō and imperfect active of chairō, linear action descriptive of the joy of the Gentiles. Glorified the word of God (edoxazon ton logon tou theou). Imperfect active again. The joy of the Gentiles increased the fury of the Jews. “The synagogue became a scene of excitement which must have been something like the original speaking with tongues” (Rackham). The joy of the Gentiles was to see how they could receive the higher blessing of Judaism without circumcision and other repellent features of Jewish ceremonialism. It was the gospel of grace and liberty from legalism that Paul had proclaimed. Whether Gal. 4:13 describes this incident or not (the South Galatian theory), it illustrates it when Gentiles received Paul as if he were Christ Jesus himself. It was a triumph with the Gentiles, but defeat with the Jews. As many as were ordained to eternal life (hosoi ēsan tetagmenoi eis zōēn aiōnian). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tassō, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word “ordain” is not the best translation here. “Appointed,” as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here 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 that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God’s plan extended to and included the Gentiles. Certainly, the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away. Believed (episteusan). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of pisteuō. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean “those who believe were appointed.” It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God’s grace by the stand they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.”[48]
Even if “by no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean “those who believe were appointed,” Robertson also concludes that there is no “absolute decree” of personal salvation here. The main emphasis here is that God purposed to bring the “good news” of their salvation to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. At this, the Gentiles were overjoyed. But not all Gentiles. Of course, God brought the gospel to all the Gentiles, but it was those God-fearing Gentiles among them who were “appointed unto eternal life.” Again, not the best rendering in this context, especially with the relative pronoun “as many as.” Rather, the military definitions of “arranged” or “ranged” themselves, as suggested above, are better. These are the ones that took their stand for eternal life when they heard the gospel, in contrast to the Jews who took their stand against eternal life when they heard the gospel. Regardless, Robertson affirms that “There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation.” Certainly Luke is emphasizing God’s salvific intentions for the Gentiles. We saw this in Paul’s own words to them and his quoting Isaiah 49:6. By his use of the word tasso, Luke is stressing God’s relationship with the God-fearing Gentiles in contrast to the recalcitrant Jews who were nevertheless the elect or chosen people of God, along with the insincerely “devout” and feckless Gentiles in v. 50. This is why the better interpretation of tetagmenoi is “disposed to.” It avoids the slide into those words that easily suggest predestination.
Luke wants us to know that God, by His Spirit, is establishing the church as his elect people and directing the expansion of the gospel – first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. As Robertson stated above, Luke’s account is obviously not reflective of a hard and fast exhaustive determinism. His overarching message here is “…behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.” (13:36) Robert Shank writes,
“The fact and significance of human agency and self-determination is quite apparent in verse 46, and verse 48 must be understood in the light of its context.”[49]
Shank also observes,
“…by thrusting the word of God from them and rejecting the Gospel preached by Paul, they “judged themselves unworthy of eternal life” in God’s sight. The judgment was not necessarily final as yet, but rather was only in progress, as implied by the linear quality of the present indicative verb. As in the case of Paul, the judgment could be altered if they would “not persist in their unbelief” (Rom, 11:23 RSV)”[50]
We should also observe the aspects of necessity and priority in the words, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you.” (v. 46) Why was it necessary that the Jews should be spoken to first? Was it that God predetermined before the foundation of the world their refusal and that by such they should be merely a foil against which to highlight the preparedness and openness of the Gentile’s hearts? Of course not! There is implicit in this statement a degree of real potentiality for repentance and faith among the individual Jews hearing the message. God was still allowing them an opportunity to serve their historical and spiritual function as the elect people of God, living out God’s will, being a light to the Gentiles, and proclaiming his salvation to the ends of the earth. (Isa. 42:6) Again, “tetagmenoi” can mean “disposed to,” which fits with the contrast between the Jews’ stubborn indisposition to believe and the Gentiles’ godly disposition to believe. The willful unbelief of the Jews contrasts with the willing acceptance by the Gentiles. The condition of one’s heart and will, over which the individual has control, is in view.
Even if we did take the Calvinist interpretation of Acts 13:48, how does this particular instance of “appointment” at a crucial turning point in the narrative (see 11:18) support the doctrine that every individual’s salvation is the result of an exhaustive, deterministic, unconditional election?[51] From what we have gleaned from the context, if we want to justify the definition “appointed to,” we would have to try to understand it as connoting a special status for the Gentiles. That is, since the elect of God, the Jews, have rejected the work and message of God in Christ, that status can now be applied to the Gentiles, described as “appointed to eternal life.” As “election” for the Jew did not translate to a predetermined, unconditional salvific status, neither would the words “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” The Gentiles, who were not among the elect people of God, but now are among the elect people of God (1 Pet. 2:9-10), not in the sense of a status of predestination or unconditional election. What was predestined was that the gospel would be brought to them, but both the individual Jew and the individual Gentile are accepted by God based on their faith alone. Neither is it the nature of love to predetermine the response of the one being loved. God does not force himself upon individuals, but seeks those willing to follow and submit to him. But again, “appointed to” is hard to reckon with “as many as.” This is why the translation “…and as many as were disposed to eternal life believed” is the most reasonable and responsible one.
Note this emphasis on disposition in Paul’s reference to David. David is described as being “found by God” to be “a man after my heart, who will do all my will” (13:22). The implication is that there are others not inclined to do the will of God as David was, which also implies that the will of God is not exhaustively done in “whatsoever comes to pass.” This becomes painfully obvious in David’s murder of Uriah and adultery with Bathsheba. Evidently David did not do “all the will of God.’ So here God is referring to David in a limited dispositional sense, not as if he is sinless or perfect, but in reference to his “heart” attitude towards God. God sees David’s God-fearing, devout disposition, which responds in faith to God. The biblical nature of faith as ultimately a free response to God is something the Calvinist ignores but must reckon with. And this is why the better definition of tetagmenoi relates to one’s heart, that is, one’s disposition to desire eternal life.
One final observation from the immediate context. In Acts 13:38-41 Paul moves from the example of David to warning his “brothers” against failing to recognize, acknowledge, and embrace the saving work God was doing among them. Paul says,
“Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sin is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. Beware, therefore, lest what is said in the Prophets should come about:
‘Look you scoffers, be astounded and perish;
For I am doing a work in your days,
a work that you will not believe even if one tells it to you.’”
Paul’s warning here is against becoming “scoffers” who ultimately “will not believe.” The implication is clear. We take this as a genuine warning that implies contingency, potentiality, and possibility; all of which are incoherent with an exhaustive theistic determinism. What we find is that the free will of man is intertwined with God’s “appointments,” that is, “I am doing a work in your days.” Yet, the Jews need not be “scoffers” who will “be astounded and perish.” Paul says, “Let it be known to you…forgiveness of sin is proclaimed to you…everyone who believes is freed…Beware, therefore, lest what is said in the Prophets should come about…” The fact that men can either respond positively and submit to the will of God or respond negatively and act contrary to the will of God is attested to throughout Scripture. Therefore, the meaning of Acts 13:48 is not Calvinism’s unconditional election.
At the beginning of the chapter, several options for defining the verb tassō other than “appointed to” were provided; “predestine” or “preordain” were not legitimate possibilities. But this is how the word τεταγμένοι (tetagmenoi, from tassō) would have to be defined if the Calvinist interpretation is to be affirmed. On Acts 13:48 Grant Osborne writes,
“…while we agree that the basic thrust is divine election, this does not negate the presence of human volition, as seen in the context.”[52]
Finally, I submit that the context will guide us into Luke’s original intent here. William W. Klein observes the following.
“Luke sees the salvation of the Gentiles as a matter of appointment. The verb tassō has the basic sense of “to arrange, determine,” “to appoint,” or “to set up.” All these senses occur in the Old Testament. F. F. Bruce sees a strong predestination taught here and opposes toning down the force of this appointment. He cites papyrus evidence that tassō can mean “inscribe” or “enroll.” He understands the meaning in this way: “all, in fact, who had been enrolled for eternal life in the records of heaven.”[53]
Though I. H. Marshall admits that predestinarian interpretation is possible, he says,
“It could also refer to those who had already put their trust in God in accordance with the Old Testament revelation of his grace and were enrolled in his people, or perhaps it means that the Gentiles believed in virtue of the fact that God’s plan of redemption included them.[54]
On this side Delling observes, “hosoi hardly means that a specific number was appointed but distinguishes converts from other hearers.”[55]
Without question, the basic sense of tassō is to set or appoint. The passive voice seems to point to God as the agent. However, we question that Luke intends this to point to some pretemporal election of certain ones so that they, and only they come to believe. This would fit poorly in the context. The Jews’ rejection of the Word of God accounted for their failure to gain eternal life. (v. 46).
What a contrast to the Gentiles who, upon hearing the good news, rejoice, honor the Word, and believe. Surely in this context Luke does not intend to restrict the application of salvation only to those appointed. Rather he shows that salvation’s sphere of application must expand from only Jews to believing Gentiles. We believe that Bruce misread the context. The key issue concerns whether people accept or reject the word of the Lord. Those who reject disqualify themselves from eternal life. On the other side, Luke describes believers as “those who are appointed for eternal life.” Neil says of our text:
It is not in any sense narrowly predestinarian, as if some are scheduled for salvation and others for damnation; the Bible constantly stresses the element of free choice: we may accept or reject the Word of God. In this case the Jews of Antioch as a whole reject the offer of eternal life, while some – but by no means all – of the Gentiles accept it. Those who do accept the Gospel fulfil the purpose of God that all men shall be saved, and by their response they show that they are worthy to be numbered with the saints in heaven.[56]
Thus the believers are “the appointed ones,” a title that has obvious parallels to “the chosen ones” we saw in Mk 13:20, 22, 27, par. As did the people of God in the Old Testament, so Christians also considered themselves “the elect.” Perhaps we have here a parallel expression. The “appointed” believed. Luke views those who have been appointed as a corporate group; they, as believers, stand over against those who rejected the message.”[57]
Please note the hermeneutical references to context. Klein says, “This would fit poorly in the context” and “Bruce misread the context.” Also, it is pointed out that the Jews’ rejection of the Word of God speaks against Calvinism’s determinism and for the Bible’s affirmation of human free will. Context is an important hermeneutical principle for determining the meaning of obscure texts like Acts 13:48.
Admittedly, this is a hard passage to interpret for both the non-Calvinist and Calvinist alike. But these observations from the broader and immediate context of Acts 13:48 are enough to mitigate against embracing the theistic determinism of Reformed Calvinist theology and their interpretation of this verse. I submit that the Calvinist needs to consider a more coherent and contextually sensitive interpretation of divine sovereignty, human freedom, election, faith, and predestination.
The Nature of God’s Sovereignty in The Book of Acts
We can add to the evidence against Calvinism by surveying the passages in Acts that refer to God’s sovereignty. Grant Osborne rightly observes that,
“…Luke in Acts is careful to show that all was accomplished under divine impetus and occurred as part of his redemptive plan. It is God who at each critical node intervenes directly to guide the church in its salvific purpose (cf. 1:8, 24f.; 5:19f; 8:26f.; 9:3f.; 10:10f.; 13;2f.; 15:7f.; 16:9f., 25f.). So God is the prime mover in salvation for man, and this leads to those verses which seem to extend this to a predestinarian salvation.”[58]
Note the word “intervenes.” This implies that the Calvinists’ claim that God has ordained “whatsoever comes to pass,” that is, an exhaustive theistic determinism, is not what we find in Acts. Also, whenever God does act sovereignly, it is with respect to his salvific purposes. And I. Howard Marshall observes that the context will not allow for predestinarian interpretations.
“The concept of God’s plan as it affects his Son, the creation of the world, the redemption of mankind, and the individuals who compose the church, is clearly present in the New Testament, and it is no part of our purpose to obscure this fact by hiding any of the evidence; our task… is to be true to Scripture.
But it is one thing to state what Scripture says; it is another to understand it and to bring it into relation with the rest of what Scripture says.”[59]
Marshall is stressing the importance of interpreting a verse like Acts 13:48 in relation to its immediate and broader contexts – even a context as wide as the Bible as a whole (i.e., the canonical context). Dale Moody comments on Acts 2:22 ff.
“Peter’s preaching at Pentecost put God’s sovereign plan and man’s personal responsibility in proper relation. Here are the words of Acts 2:22f.: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know – this Jesus delivered up, according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (ESV)
There is not the slightest suggestion that there is a contradiction between God’s “definite plan and foreknowledge” and the guilt of men who “crucified and killed Jesus. God is sovereign in his rule over the final outcome of history, but he does not deny the freedom of man to make his own decisions even to his own destruction.”[60]
This tells something important about God’s sovereignty. That is, that it cannot and should be defined as a universal determinism, or a theistic determinism that is exhaustive. Note that the Calvinist will point out that we should embrace the contradiction here because according to them the biblical writers do not present “the slightest suggestion that there is a contradiction” here. But that would be to presume a definition of “sovereignty” that the Bible is not affirming, that is, this universal or exhaustive theistic determinism. The Calvinist has imposed such a definition on words in these texts and propagated it as the doctrine of “the sovereignty of God.” Luke indeed has no intellectual or moral struggle regarding the coexistence of divine sovereignty and human freedom, but that is because he does not define “God’s sovereignty” as exhaustive determinism. Therefore, we too should adjust our definition of “sovereignty” accordingly. Luke is unconcerned about the contradiction that the “definite plan and foreknowledge of God” generates with the culpability of those who crucified Jesus, not because they simply accept such a contradiction as Calvinists would have us do, but rather because they do not understand God’s “definite plan and foreknowledge” in Calvinist terms as an exhaustive determinism in which every thought and action of every individual all the time is preordained and caused by God. That Calvinist view certainly does generate inconsistencies, incoherencies, and contradictions within Scripture. There is no problem for the biblical writers because they do not perceive divine sovereignty in a way that creates a contradiction between sovereignty and human freedom. To claim the biblical writers do not struggle with this incoherence and hence we should believe “the Bible teaches both” and readjust our thinking accordingly is merely to beg the question. It presupposes the truth of Calvinism. It presupposes that the biblical writers understand “the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” as “whatsoever comes to pass” via God’s comprehensive deterministic eternal decree. But perhaps Luke and Paul understood God’s sovereignty not as a universal determinism but in terms of intervention, as particular and specific actions related to the circumstances of salvation, that is, in this text, Jesus’ crucifixion. The text speaks of God’s “definite plan” and his “foreknowledge” (Acts 2:22, ESV). God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge refer to the circumstances of Jesus’ death. Whether or not “God’s sovereignty” in Acts can mean what the Calvinist claims it means as a universal or exhaustive theistic determinism is the question before us.
In Acts 4:24-28, Peter and John are released from custody and arrest by the Jewish rulers for preaching Jesus. When the people learned what the chief priests and elders said to Peter and John, that they should not speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus (4:18), and that Peter and John refused to follow their orders, their friends,
“…lifted their voices together to God and said, ‘Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,
‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people plot in vain?
The Kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed -’
For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” (ESV)
Here we have “your hand” and “your plan,” which “predestined” what took place. Again, this is in reference to and focused upon the comprehensive events of Jesus’ persecution and last days. Moody observes,
“That prayer puts the responsibility for the death of Jesus on about every person mentioned in the Gospels…The quotation from Psalm 2:1-2 allows people to imagine vain things and to act according to their imaginations, but God rules over all their intentions in the drama of redemption. Their vain imaginations are stimulated by human sin, not by the act of God, and it is this human sin that makes them guilty.”[61]
The “friends” (4:23, ESV) of Peter and John understood God’s sovereignty. They understood that it was the “Gentiles” who “raged,” and the “people” who plotted “in vain” because they saw how God nevertheless worked through the free decisions of these sinners to bring to pass his good purposes. Therefore, what the people prayed for, looking to Jesus’ persecution as an example of assurance and strength, is “And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness” (4:29, ESV). These believers were confident that God could continue to work good out of the evil actions of men because of what he did with Jesus and what they were told about Peter and John being arrested. threatened, and released.
In Acts 5:34-39, we find the interesting remarks of Gamaliel that give insight into the nature of God’s sovereignty. The implications of his remarks are that God’s work is not of the nature of an exhaustive determinism. Many things are not predetermined by God, but those that are cannot be thwarted.
“…Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (ESV)
We see this freedom of will in the context of God’s sovereign activity over and over throughout Acts (e.g., 7:51-53; 14:16). Another intriguing example is found in 17:24-27. There we read,
“The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us…”
Although God sovereignly “allots” the “periods and the boundaries” of the dwelling places of men, he does not appear to predetermine their seeking and finding him. That they “should seek God” certainly implies that they can. Also implied is God’s desire that they “find him.” He is actually not far from “each one of us.” Moody writes,
“This sovereignty of God over universal history comes forth more clearly in Paul’s sermon on the Unknown God in Athens…This allotment of periods and boundaries does not attribute to God all the evil of invasions and wars in human history.”[62]
If it is true that “…God is the one who drives the story along and takes the initiatives that led to the expansion of the believing community,” as Steve Walton rightly points out in his article on Acts,[63] does this necessarily entail the theistic determinism of Calvinist soteriology? Walton goes on to point out that “Humans receive salvation by responding to the message in believing trust in Jesus (2:44; 3:16; 14:9; 16:31-32, 34) expressed in repentance and water baptism (2:38; 16:33; 22:16), resulting in becoming part of the believing community (2:39-42).”[64] Walton adds,
“The believing community is presented warts and all, to the extent that believers can be a barrier, or at least resistant, to the new moves God is making. Thus, the Jerusalem believers criticize Peter for visiting Cornelius (11:2) and are persuaded otherwise only because they see that God is acting (11:18). The argument does not go away, for more Judean believers argue that circumcision and torah-observance are necessary for salvation (15:1, 5). When this question is debated, there is repeated emphasis on what God is doing, to make clear that this is no human project (15:7-11, 12, 14-19).”[65]
We can see that Luke’s accounts do not cohere with the Calvinist understanding of sovereignty as “meticulous divine providence” (Chris Date’s definition) but rather as the unfailing accomplishment of his plans and purposes in the midst of free human actions and responses. Included in God’s sovereign purposes is his bestowal upon his human creatures of the freedom of will to act and respond to God’s actions in history. Ken Keathley writes,
“The God of the Bible created the world out of nothing – creatio ex nihilo – and this truth entails two corollaries: sovereignty and permission. God’s sovereignty is His lordship over creation. Divine sovereignty means that God rules, and, yes, controls all things.”[66]
Note that terms and phrases like “controls” and “controls all things” highlight a recurring problem in this discussion, that is, the definition of terms. Most of us, when we hear these words, think they must mean “universal theistic determinism,” as in Calvinism. But that is because Calvinism has had such a powerful and enduring presence in our evangelical churches. But Keathley goes on to talk about the principle of permission.
“Permission is the decision by God to allow something other than Himself to exist. Mere existence seems to be what God gave to most of creation because most of this immense universe consists simply of physical materials that obey natural laws. He gave a level of freedom, within limits, to certain agents – namely angels and humans. God did not grant us absolute independence or complete autonomy. Using the word permission highlights the point that our freedom is a derived freedom. He gave us the ability to choose, and with this ability came the moral responsibility for those choices. The concept of permission means that though God controls all things He does not cause all things. How much freedom did he permit us? Enough to rebel.”[67]
Philosopher Jerry Walls writes the following about Calvinists who hold that divine sovereignty, defined as theistic determinism, is compatible with human free will.
“Of course, compatibilists sometimes use language of “allowance” and “permission” when they speak of evil actions, suggesting that God permits evil ultimately to achieve his good purposes. The problem is that permission language does not make much sense on compatibilist premises. Typically, to say an action is permitted is to imply that one is not controlling that action. For instance, parents may permit their children to make bad decisions that they would prefer them not to make. A father, for instance, may permit his son to buy a certain car that he knows is a bad investment. He may do so because he has simply chosen to leave the choice to his son (even though he is not yet of legal age) or perhaps because he thinks it is a good way for his son to learn a valuable lesson. He would prefer his son already understand this lesson, or learn it some other way, but he permits the choice, even though he would rather see him choose differently. Now this sort of permission does not make sense on compatibilist assumptions, for God determines everything, including all choices, exactly as he wishes. If he does not wish a given action to be taken, he can determine things so it will not be. Given the compatibilist understanding of freedom, God can determine all persons to freely do precisely as he wishes, and need not ever “permit” them to do what he does not prefer.”[68]
The problem with the Calvinist view of sovereignty is not its emphasis on control but exhaustive causality. In Acts we see that God ‘controls’ certain things, but obviously not all things. It is incoherent to say that God predetermines and causes someone to act freely. God is actively ruling and reigning over his creation and man’s salvation while not predetermining “whatsoever comes to pass.” That would be to embrace a determinism that is based on a faulty hermeneutic that, in the end, only leads us into logical, moral, and theological confusion. We do not wish to deny the element of divine sovereignty in Acts; we just want to rightly define and understand it. F. F. Bruce writes,
“The book might indeed be called ‘The Acts of the Holy Spirit ‘, for it is the Spirit who controls the advance of the gospel throughout…”[69]
Yet, we can see by incorporating other aspects of Luke’s account and the whole of Scripture into our exegesis that this does not mean God predetermines which individuals would believe and be granted eternal life and which individuals would be damned for eternity. Again, this is not likely on contextual grounds. For instance, this is made quite clear in Acts 17:30, where Paul tells the Athenians,
“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”
The word “command” presupposes a free-will decision or response to obey or disobey God’s command. And contrary to Calvinism’s unconditional election, the universality of the call “to all people everywhere” to repent is clear. Moody observes,
“God does have a goal in human life and history toward which he is working. He has put limits to man’s freedom, but these limits do not eliminate human responsibility. They do deny human sovereignty. Man does not have the final decision over the outcome of history and of human destiny. Any effort of man to be sovereign is an effort to be God, and that can only bring condemnation and human destruction. God’s sovereignty brings all responsive persons to fulfillment, but human sovereignty ends in frustration.”[70]
All this suggests the Bible provides us with very different definitions of both divine sovereignty and election. These biblical definitions are counter to Calvinism’s universal divine causal determinism. I refer you to the bibliography for study resources on the doctrine of election. Suffice it to say here that, generally speaking, “the elect” in the New Testament are those who are called by God through the gospel and who become members of his people by exercising faith.”[71]
Apostasy in Acts 20:29-31
The apostasy in Acts mitigates against the Calvinist’s deterministic view of Acts 13:48. In Acts 20:30 we read,
“I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.” (Acts 20:29-31, NIV)
The J. B. Phillips translation has,
“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you without mercy for the flock. Yes, and even among you men will arise speaking perversions of the truth, trying to draw away the disciples and make them followers of themselves. This is why I tell you to keep on the alert, remembering that for three years I never failed night and day to warn every one of you, even with tears in my eyes.” (Acts 20:29-31, JBP)
Grant Osborne observes,
“This is especially seen when one notes the passages on perseverance and the danger of apostasy in Acts. In 20:30 it says false teachers will arise who will seek “to draw away the disciples after them.” This does not mean backsliding but apostasy, as seen in the term “draw away.” The warning was real and involved heresy and apostasy.” [72]
I. Howard Marshall reminds us that what we believers put our trust in is an almighty God. This is the God we see at work in Luke’s accounts throughout Acts. Marshall writes,
“Hence Christian faith is faith that one will persevere because God is almighty. Now if a person wonders whether he will persevere, he is doubting the content of his faith and is not believing. So the apostate is the person who has ceased to believe in the power and love of God. Hence by definition a believer is a person who believes that God will triumph – and that the triumph will include his share in it…Falling away is giving up the faith that one will persevere by the power of God.”[73]
Perseverance then is akin to the nature of faith. It is a continuous conviction that God is able to keep us in his love by his power – not that we keep ourselves by our own strength in his love. All we do is trust in him and his resources for our perseverance. Marshall again states,
“That is to say, his [the believer’s] assurance is rooted not in the fact that he has faith, but in the character and promises of God. And that is surely the point of the language of God’s election and choice. It is an affirmation of the commitment of God to those who are his people; it is a declaration of faith that God, having brought us thus far, intends to bring us to final glory. It stands along passages that declare that there is a condition to all this – ‘provided that we also suffer with him’ – and that warns us against unbelief.”[74]
Perseverance is knowing and being convinced that it is the power of God that is sufficient for our trying circumstances and therefore we can continue to believe and trust in him. Yet it is we who respond to God’s offer of love and keeping power by continuing to believe and trust. This faith is not predetermined. It is our trust in the power of God to keep us from falling away. It is our trust in the God who is worthy of our trust and will keep us by His power. What is predetermined is that those who put their trust in this God will be kept by His power and love. And that being the case, absolutely nothing “will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 8:39)
The Arminian Interpretation of Acts 13:48
Acts 13:48 can be employed to affirm the Arminian understanding of election. “And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” could very well affirm that God foreknew who would respond to his prevenient grace and therefore “appointed,” “ordained,” or “elected” these persons to salvation. The Arminian systematic theologian Henry Thiessen explains,
“God foreknew what men would do in response to His common grace; and He elected those whom He foresaw would respond positively. Election is followed by foreordination (also called predestination). This is the act of God whereby He pre-registers, as it were, those whom he has chosen. It implies that He has determined to save them: to give them life (Acts 13:48), place them into a position of sons (Eph. 1:5, 11), and conform them to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29, 30).”[75]
I do not think this is correct. It seems to me that this Arminian position is too influenced by the Calvinist definition of unconditional election. It is seeking to accommodate the Calvinist definition of election as a divine unilateral choice of who will be saved and who will not be saved. Although the Arminian allows for genuine free will in a person’s decision to believe in Christ and be saved, in a sense, the Arminian has imbibed Calvinism’s idea of election if not its definition as unconditional. The Arminian still feels that it is required that God be the determiner of a person’s “election.” The Arminian still believes that people need to be elected in reference to their salvation. That God elects people to salvation is still part of Arminian soteriology. They have bought into the idea that there must be an “election” that refers to directly to the person’s salvation. Granted, it is an election based upon God’s foreknowledge of who will freely believe, and that is the difference between Arminian election and Calvinist unconditional election. It is the idea that God foreknows who will believe and therefore “elects” them to salvation. But what meaning does this “election” have? It is “election” defined as God “choosing” people with respect to their salvation, while also maintaining that it is the sinner himself who decides to believe and be saved. What is the point, then, of needing to have God elect them to salvation?
Also, it seems to me that this interpretation is too bound to this verse without due consideration of the immediate context, the broader context of Acts, and the Old Testament history. This Arminian position seems forced because its interpretive horizon is limited to this verse alone (“proof-texting”). It then reads the verse through the lens of Arminian theology rather than reading the verse in these various contexts.
From our Old Testament survey, we can see that this Arminian “foreknowledge” view falls short of an historically informed understanding of election. Again, it has been influenced too much by Calvinism. We saw that election in the Old Testament was not about God choosing who will be saved and who will not be saved. Election is not a salvific issue in the Old Testament. This is not the concern or definition of election in the Old Testament and therefore neither is it the concern or the definition in the New Testament. So, keeping in mind what “elect” or “chosen” meant in the Old Testament context (which I examined in the sections on 1st and 2nd Thessalonians), we must expand our interpretive view into the broader context of Acts to get a clearer idea of what Luke meant to communicate in this verse. We need to realize that the Old Testament history and theology is still the background history and theology in play throughout the first century.
A better Arminian explanation is proposed by Jack Cottrell. He proposes we read τεταγμένοι, not in the passive voice, but in the middle voice. He writes,
“…Acts 13:48, [is a] verse almost always uniformly translated in a way that pleases Calvinists: “As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” How can this be reconciled with the Arminian view? There is no need to invoke an implied foreknowledge here or to seek some esoteric meaning for the verb tasso. The key is to understand that the verb form (τεταγμένοι) should be taken as middle (reflexive) voice, not passive. “As many as arranged themselves unto (eis) eternal life believed,” or, “As many as turned themselves toward eternal life believed.”[76]
The participle can be interpreted either in the middle or passive voice. Taking it as a middle is perfectly legitimate and seems to me a better interpretation than the “foreknowledge” view.
One problem all interpreters face is the measure of ambiguity in Acts 13:48. Luke uses the word tasso which has a range of meanings, and he does not elaborate on the definition he intended to communicate. Neither does he explain what precisely is involved in bringing this “appointment” about so that it results in “eternal life.” Now, from within Arminianism, this verse may be speaking about the result of foreseen receptivity to Paul’s gospel. This is the accepted meaning of “foreknew” in “For those whom he foreknew…” in Romans 8:29. It is to be understood as “prescience of character.”[77] And this aspect of one’s character leads us into an examination of our next non-Calvinist interpretation, that is, the ‘disposition” interpretation.
With “Tetagmenoi” Meaning “Disposed To”
I have already thoroughly discussed this option above, and I refer you to the sections on 1st and 2nd Thessalonians for an expanded explanation of the essential issue in this interpretation, having to do with God-fearers or those who feared God. Indeed, the section of Acts from chapter 10 with Cornelius’ conversion through chapter 13 with the conversion of Sergius Paulus, the proconsul, is an example of how many of the Gentiles were “disposed to life eternal.”
Being “disposed to eternal life” refers to the gospel coming to those who worship and fear God and whose hearts are open and will believe the “good news” if they hear it. In the immediate context, we read of those who “feared God” and are clearly told that “in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:2, 22, 34, 35; 13:16, 26). Sergius Paulus, the proconsul, “sought to hear the word of God” (13:7, ESV). In verse 12, we read, “Then the proconsul believed…for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord” (ESV). In verse 16, “Men of Israel and you who fear God, listen” (ESV). In verse 26, “Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God” (ESV). These God-fearers were Gentile proselytes to Judaism. Luke highlights the faith response of the Gentiles (v. 48) in contrast to the unbelieving response and opposition from the Jews (v. 45). God is pleased with the disposition of faith and therefore purposes to bring these persons the gospel and save them (also perhaps Eph. 1:13). The idea is that those who are of the disposition of faith and trust in God will be brought the message and will believe. They are “disposed” to eternal life, and therefore, at that time, they “believed.”
Amid God’s sovereign actions through the Holy Spirit throughout Acts, there is an emphasis on preparedness of heart and free human responses. I say this because Paul’s words to the Jews in 13:46 must be taken seriously and plainly for what they mean and imply. As I have already pointed out, Paul’s words to the Jews presuppose the free-will response of those Jews who have rejected the “word of God” spoken first to them, in contrast to the Gentiles who receive the gospel with joy.
Some versions have the words “appointed to” or “ordained to” eternal life. I. Howard Marshall observes,
“…it may be that those who are described as being ordained to eternal life were Gentiles who were already proselytes and worshippers of God. Earlier in Acts Cornelius was already a religious man when God took the initiative in bringing a preacher of the good news of Jesus to him, and the same is true of the Ethiopian eunuch who had come to Jerusalem in order to worship. In both cases we are concerned with people who were already seeking salvation and had gone as far as the Jewish religion could take them. Now in Acts 13:43 we are told that ‘many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.’”[78]
That is to say that certain people had converted to Judaism, being receptive to the things of God and seeking the one true God. In these people, there was a prior receptivity to God and his message. This phenomenon in the context of the Book of Acts serves to qualify and define Luke’s intent in the phrase “disposed to eternal life.” Luke emphasizes a proper spiritual “disposition” of heart – the humility, devotion, good works, and fear of the Lord which are identified as essential to receiving the word. The fact that this disposition is generally found among the Gentiles and not so much among the Jews is of special interest and emphasis for Luke as the one recording the advance of the gospel in Acts and is also an aspect of the gospel (Lu. 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40; 9:15, 20, 31, 35, 42; 10:1-2, 22, 31, 35. 45; 11:1, 18, cf. 11:19, 20-21; 12:24; ch 13; 14:11, 21-23, 27; 15:10; 16:30-34; 17:4, 17, 34; 18:6, 9-14, cf. 13:46-50; 19:10, 20; 21:19, 25; 22:21; 2823-24; 28).[79] Therefore, if God seeks out those who are humbly seeking him, and will not leave them without a knowledge of the way of salvation, the words “as many as” refer not to a specific number that was predestined to eternal life, but distinguish between the Gentile God-fearers and all the other hearers. Thus, the idea in this view is as follows: “When the Gentiles heard the prophecy of Isaiah which revealed that God fully intended that they too were included in his plan of salvation, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as those who were disposed to eternal life, they believed.” Hence, faith is essential and also stressed here.[80] The necessity and nature of believing, which throughout Scripture is always assigned to the will of the sinner, is the sole condition for appropriating God’s salvation. The need for faith is always required for a person to be saved. Hence, Luke’s emphasis could be as simple as that of the preparedness of the heart.[81]
This is born out in several places in Acts. Later in 18:5ff., we read another interesting passage often used to support unconditional election. In this chapter, Paul is in Corinth. Luke records the contrast between the Jewish opposition to the gospel and the receptivity to the gospel of others, probably mostly Greek Gentiles. Luke writes,
“When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” (Acts 18:5-6, ESV)
Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.” (Acts 19:5-8, NIV)
Note the Jewish rejection of the gospel and their persecution of Paul, which is placed in contrast to those who were receptive to Paul’s message. We have Titius Justus, who is described as “a worshipper of God.” In contrast, we have those Jews who are “the people of God,” that is, “the elect,” who claimed to worship God but were rejecting their Messiah. This is inconsistent, for God testified to Jesus and Jesus testified to the Father. We have two worshippers of God with very different attitudes towards God’s gospel about the Messiah Jesus. But even some Jews were of the right disposition to hear and respond to Paul’s gospel. Hence, we are told of Crispus, who was the “synagogue leader” and was ready for salvation and believed, as well as his entire household, along with “many of the Corinthians.” Now, interestingly, given that persecution against Paul was a pattern in his ministry, God himself speaks to Paul in a vision. In Acts 18:9-10, we read,
“One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.” (Acts 18:9-10, NIV)
I have examined this text thoroughly in my critique of Josh Howerton’s sermon on this verse. The controversial phrase is, “…I have many people in this city.” Calvinists claim this supports unconditional election. but Richard Watson comments on this verse.
“The expression is, at least, capable of two very satisfactory interpretations, independent of the theory of Calvinistic election. It may mean, that there were many well disposed and serious inquirers among the “Greeks” in Corinth; for when Paul turned from the Jews, he “entered into the house of Justus, one that worshipped God.” This man was a Greek proselyte; and, from various parts of the Acts of the Apostles it is plain, that this class of people were not only numerous, but generally received the Gospel with joy, and were among the first who joined the primitive Churches. They manifested their readiness to receive the Gospel in Corinth itself when the Jews “opposed and blasphemed;” and it is not improbable, that to such proselytes, who were in many places “a people prepared for the Lord,” reference is made, when our Saviour, speaking to Paul in this vision, says, “I have much people in this city.” Suppose, however, he speaks prospectively and prophetically, making his foreknowledge of an event the means of encouraging the labours of his devoted apostle, the doctrine of election follows neither from the fact of the foreknowledge of God, nor from prophetic declarations grounded upon it. Even Calvin founds not election upon God’s foreknowledge; but upon his decree.”[82]
Acts 18:9-10 and 13:46-48 are parallel passages with very similar characteristics. Include with these 28:23-28, and we have a major theme in the book of Acts. Luke is surely tracking the inclusion of the Gentiles in salvation in contrast to the Jews, who are continually rejecting and opposing the spread of the gospel.
It should be noted that in 13:48, “believed” is the first word in the second half of the verse after “and.” The verse reads, “…and they believed as many as were disposed to life eternal.” This word order, it seems to me, is important and should be kept in translating this verse. “Believed” (aor., act., indic., 3rd per. pl.) should remain at the beginning of that phrase in the sentence and, although it would be a bit awkward, it should not be relegated to the end as is common. I see no reason for this. Therefore, the verse would read,
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the world of the Lord, and they believed, as many as were disposed to eternal life.”
The point is that, in context, there is nothing here that allows for the Calvinist view. There is nothing about individuals being irresistibly and effectually moved upon by God to believe due to their having been unconditionally elected by a divine decree made in eternity past, let alone extrapolating that every human person’s eternal destiny is so ordained. As I have demonstrated, Calvinism is incoherent, both biblically, logically, and morally. It creates inconsistencies, incoherencies, and contradictions within Scripture. This makes the Calvinist interpretation of ambiguous passages like this not an option. If it can be responsibly interpreted otherwise, which is what we have done, then the Calvinist interpretation cannot stand. Calvinism must be read into the text. It cannot be gleaned from it. Therefore, other alternatives that are coherent with other clearer biblical doctrines lend their input to ambiguous passages like this. Luke’s meaning may be modest. “The Gentiles who believed were those who desired eternal life.” The immediate and broader contexts affirm significant, genuine human freedom. Such freedom militates against the exhaustive determinism inherent in Calvinism. Theistic determinism and election as unconditional have no support from the definition of tasso, the middle voice of tetagmenoi, the immediate context, the broader context of the book of Acts itself, and Scripture as a whole. Divine sovereignty, defined as God ruling, reigning, and controlling human events according to his purposes for human history does have support. Such a definition does not contradict human freedom of the will. According to Luke, several of those divine purposes are that salvation should be accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, his Son, that this “good news” should be spread into Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and into the Gentile world, and finally to Rome, step-by-step as God “appointed” it to happen, and that those who believe should inherit eternal life. I concur with I. Howard Marshall, who observes,
“This language sounds strongly predestinarian, but it is unlikely that we should press it to mean that the people in question believed and received eternal life because they had been individually predestined to do so.
For, first, the previous verses speak of the free rejection of the Gospel by the Jews who disbelieved; the passage says nothing about their being predestined to do so. It is certainly the case that the Jewish hardness of heart was foretold by Isaiah (6:9-10) in a passage expressly quoted in Acts 28:25-28, but this quotation refers to the nation as a whole; in the very same passage we hear of some Jews who did believe the Gospel preached by Paul and in whose case, therefore, the prophecy was not fulfilled (Acts 28:24).”[83]
The immediate context of Acts 13:48, the broader context of Luke/Acts, and the whole of Scripture testify to realities that are in direct logical, moral, and theological conflict with a deterministic interpretation of Acts 13:48. It is hardly necessary or even feasible to comment on what is everywhere testified to in Scripture regarding human freedom and a non-deterministic reality. Theologian Robert Shank writes,
“Finally decisive against their [Calvinists’] thesis is the fact that it is in radical contradiction of the categorical affirmations of I Timothy 2:4, II Peter 3:9, Titus 2:11, and the many cognate passages affirming the desire and provision of God for the salvation of all men through Christ.”[84]
Shank is correct. Here is a small sample of passages that affirm it is God’s desire and will to save all sinners by Jesus’ death on the cross:
Gen. 1:28; 2:15-17; 3:22; 4:7; Deut. ch.30; Isaiah 1:16-20; 43:10; 45:22; 55:6, 7; Prov. 1:10, 23, 29, 33; 8:32-36; Ezekiel 18; Zeph. 2:1-3; Matt. 3:1,2, 7-10; 6:14,15; Ch. 18; 23:37; Mark 1:14,15; 10:21, 22; Luke 13; 16:27-31; John 1:29; 3:16-18, 36; 5:34, 38, 40, 44, 46; 6:27, 29, 35, 36, 47, 53, 54-58; 7:17; 8:12, 24, 46, 47; 9:35-41; 10:37-38; 11:15, 25-26; 12:24-26, 36, 48; 15:4,6,7,9,22; 20:29-31; Acts 7:51; 17:30; Rom. 3:23-26, 28-30; 4:3, 5; 5:6-8; 10:1, 4, 9, 12, 13; 11:20, 23, 32; 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:14 – 6:2; 2 Thess. 2:7-12; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; Heb. 2:9; James 4:1-10; 2 Pet. 2:1d; 3:9; 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:8-10, 14, 16; 5:1, 9-13; Rev. 2:5, 16, 21; 3:18-20; et al.
To this, we can add the nature of faith, which is everywhere spoken of as the sinner’s responsibility. On the nature of faith, see my chapter 15 “The Nature of Faith in Scripture” and:
Mark 1:14, 15, 16:15, 16; Luke 7:30, 10:8-16. 11:50, 51. 13:3; John 3:16-18; 5:34, 40, 45-47; 8:24; 20:31; Acts 3:17-26, 5:32, 7:39,53, 13:38-52, 14:15-17, 17:30, 19:9, 26:15ff. esp. 19, 28:23-28; Rev. 2:5, 16, 21, 3:3, 4, 19, 9:20,21, 22:12-17.
The Calvinist who believes Acts 13:48 teaches a universal divine causal determinism and its derivative TULIP doctrines must offer a plausible explanation as to how the verses listed above can be understood to be coherent with those doctrines (e.g., unconditional election), or why dismissing the incoherence as “divine mystery,” “antinomy,” or as merely an “apparent contradiction” is responsible both interpretively and hermeneutically. The incoherencies and contradictions generated by the Calvinist understanding of sovereignty as theistic determinism and election as unconditional ought to cause the Calvinist to pause and review whether their doctrinal claims are what the Bible actually means when it refers to sovereignty, election, and the elect.
Marshall includes another reason for rejecting the Calvinist interpretation of Acts 13:48. That reason has to do with the fulfillment of the prophecy in the passage regarding the Gentiles, which is consistent with Luke’s broader purpose in the book of Acts. Marshall observes,
“…whether or not the preceding suggestion is correct, the context of the verse shows that it is concerned with the transition in the plan of God from the Jews to the Gentiles. The divine plan required that the Gospel be preached first to the Jews, but also, when they as a community rejected it, to the Gentiles in accordance with Isaiah 49:6. For God’s purpose included the gathering of the Gentiles into the kingdom. It was this prophecy which was fulfilled in the response of the Gentiles in Antioch.”[85]
Finally, Marshall makes the following observations.
“Acts 13:48 could well mean that those Gentiles who had already begun to search for eternal life (like Cornelius in Acts 10) believed upon hearing the good news that salvation was now at last being offered to them through Jesus. Or it might mean that the Gentiles believed inasmuch as they had (collectively) been included in God’s saving plan.
We have no desire to empty these verses of their meaning. It is beyond cavil that the Bible teaches that God takes the initiative in salvation, that he planned the creation of his people from eternity past, that it is he who calls to salvation, and that his Spirit leads people to faith in a way that we cannot understand. Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike believe that it makes sense to pray that the Spirit will lead unconverted people to respond. But whether we can conclude from this that a secret predestining will of God always operates when people are saved is doubtful.”[86]
The “Already Appointed” Interpretation of Acts 13:48
Another non-Calvinist theory of the meaning of Acts 13:48 suggests that these Jews and God-fearing Gentiles still only understood their relationship to God in terms of the Old Testament revelation and from within their present-day Judaism. Nevertheless, being people of faith, they have already been saved under the old covenant. They had already been “appointed to eternal life.” But they have not yet heard of “the message of salvation” in Jesus Christ and his resurrection from the dead and the forgiveness of sins (vss. 30-38). Therefore, they have not yet “believed” in Jesus. But once Paul proclaimed to these proselytes and the other Gentiles (v. 48) who then heard about the forgiveness of sins in Jesus, they rejoiced and then believed. This, then, would be the meaning of “and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Paul proclaims to those who were already saved and appointed to eternal life because of their faith in God, but did not know about Jesus. Upon hearing about Jesus and his resurrection, they believed in Jesus. So, the response of the Gentiles in verse 48 describes those who were trusting in the God of the Old Testament and Judaism. They had already been “appointed to eternal life.” Therefore, “as many as” were so appointed; when they heard about Jesus, they believed. This, of course, puts no limit on those who may still be saved (the flaw in the Calvinist’s interpretation, which has all “the elect” in Pisidian Antioch believing without remainder, that is, no one else can be saved there). Anyone may trust in God and believe in Jesus. Paul is clear about this when he says that through Jesus “forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.” (vss. 38-39) The proponents of this interpretation find support in verse 43, where “God-fearing proselytes” (NASB) or Gentile converts became Christians.[87]
I find this to be a very credible interpretation of verse 48, especially from our study of the Old Testament. We read in Gen. 15:6 about Abraham’s relationship to God, where it says, “And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” (ESV) Of course, the Old Testament men and women of faith could only be saved by the death of Jesus on the cross. But this does not mean that they could not be saved or “appointed to eternal life” before Jesus died. God honored their faith, appropriating to them what Christ would accomplish for them in the future. As a salvific work yet to be accomplished, it would still be applied to them based on their faith in the revelation they had at that time. Once Christ died, his death would be applied to them. It is the same for those Gentile proselytes at that time. Because of their faith, they were already saved and appointed to eternal life. They just needed to hear and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ (Rom. 10:14-15). When they heard the gospel, they believed. Hence, “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
Acts 13:48: No Biblical Support for Being Predestined to Faith
An additional reason can be given why the Calvinist’s interpretation is untenable. Nowhere in Scripture, including here in Acts 13:48, are we told that a person is predestined, predetermined, or preordained to faith or belief which is the logical result of Calvinist determinism. We must interpret Acts 13:48 within the parameters of the biblical teaching on the nature and role of faith in salvation. The biblical view of faith as a free decision of the individual sinner is incompatible with theistic determinism.
Acts 13:48 refers to being “appointed to eternal life,” that is, “to salvation.” Yet, this is not apart from believing which is everywhere in Scripture presented as the sole condition by which the individual sinner appropriates salvation to oneself. Biblical faith with respect to salvation is a willed, continual, active response on the part of the individual. This is in accord with the textual and interpretive data presented above. I. Howard Marshall continues,
“It was because the Gentiles as such had been ordained to eternal life – on condition of faith – that now they believed. Luke’s statement, therefore, is not concerned to delimit a particular group of Gentiles who, in distinction from other people, were specially ordained to believe, but to demonstrate that when God took the initiative and offered salvation to the Gentiles, in accordance with His purpose to call a people for Himself out of the Gentiles, they responded with faith. The Gentiles have as much right in God’s plan to eternal life as the Jews.”[88]
Acts 13:48 and Calvinism’s Unacceptable Hermeneutic of Incoherence
Another powerful justification for taking a non-Calvinist view of Acts 13:48 involves the question of proper hermeneutics. To embrace a deterministic interpretation of Acts 13:48 is to affirm a particular hermeneutic or interpretive philosophy. Since the Calvinist interpretation generates biblical, logical, and moral incoherence and contradiction and this is not a substantial concern for the Calvinist, they are therefore affirming that interpretive coherence and non-contradiction are not crucial controlling factors for assessing the validity of one’s interpretive conclusions. The Calvinist is not convinced that interpretations that foster incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction, as Calvinism surely does, should not be considered misinterpretations. The Calvinist does not believe that coherence, consistency, and contradiction are indicative of proper interpretations or are reliable indicators of valid interpretation. In other words, incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction are not viewed by the Calvinist as indicators that something is amiss in their interpretations. Hence, these are rationalized away and dismissed as ultimately unfathomable problems that are only “apparent” and “cannot be resolved this side of heaven.” The Calvinist embraces their deterministic definitions of sovereignty and election regardless of the fact that they create logical, moral, and theological contradiction and incoherence. To embrace the Calvinist understanding of Acts 13:48 is to accept the Calvinist system against the overwhelming biblical testimony to human freedom, contingency, persuasion, personal and moral responsibility, culpability, the nature of faith, potentiality, possibility, etc. Indeed, Calvinism is antithetical to the whole biblical worldview. I submit that to merely dismiss these incoherencies and contradictions as “apparent contradictions,” “antinomy,” “divine mystery,” “beyond human reason,” or to claim that “the Bible teaches both” a deterministic sovereignty and genuine human freedom is hermeneutically illegitimate.[89] Marshall is correct when he states,
“We must not draw logical conclusions from the biblical material that go beyond its clear implications and which land us in logical contradiction with other biblical teaching.”[90]
Hence, ultimately the Calvinist fails to find any positive hermeneutical significance in the theological, logical, and moral, incoherencies generated by their Calvinist doctrines. This is certainly not a legitimate hermeneutic and their persistence in pursing and propagating their false theology which has no message of “good news,” seems analogous to the stubborn resistance of the Jews we read about in Acts and the Gospels. As I have written extensively on this site, the most troubling effect of Calvinism is its annihilation of the gospel as “good news.”[91]
Authorial intent is an essential hermeneutical principle. We should ask, therefore, whether Luke intends this verse to be a normative theological statement of how salvation occurs for all people, everywhere, and at all times. This is how the Calvinist proposes we take it as referring to their doctrine of unconditional election. Does Luke’s statement intend to convey a hard-and-fast soteriological predestinarian doctrine? I contend that Luke’s primary intent is not to teach a theology of a divine salvific decree and the inner workings of salvation, but his main emphasis is to “show how the church emerged as a chiefly Gentile, world-wide phenomenon from its origins as a Jerusalem-based, Judaism-oriented sect of Jewish believers, and how the Holy Spirit was directly responsible for this phenomenon of universal salvation based on grace alone.”[92] This could be the intended limit of his use of the word “appointed” in this verse, although this word in not the best translation. “Disposed to” is more coherent for the many reasons given above. Nevertheless, I do not see how the Calvinist understanding is more plausible given the full scope of the biblical and hermeneutical data that needs to be considered in interpreting this verse. I have attempted to provide all this data and the alternative interpretations above.
Summary & Conclusions
There is no doubt that elements of this verse are difficult to grasp. But our first responsibility is to objectively attempt to discern the meaning Luke intended to give us, not impose our theological predilections upon the verse. Our study of Acts 13:48 in context has indicated that even though God acts sovereignly to bring about redemption through his Son and strategically spread that gospel “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (1:8), His sovereign activity cannot be understood as his predetermination of “whatsoever comes to pass.” I have given substantive reasons as to why this is the case. Not only is the theistic determinism of Calvinism antithetical to the biblical worldview and therefore creates incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions within and among the biblical texts, it cannot account for the broader and immediate contexts of Acts 13:48. Therefore, the definitional latitude of tasso as meaning “disposed to,” along with taking tetagmenoi in the middle voice, lead to a responsible and coherent interpretation of this verse, that is, “…and as many as were disposed to eternal life believed.” Therefore, with reference to salvation, election is not unconditional, and predestination does not mean that there is an eternal decree whereby some are chosen for salvation, while others are not.[93]
In conclusion, I provide the following reasons for my interpretation of this verse.
1) The latitude of the definition of the word tetagmenoi, which includes “disposed to.” This definition best fits the context and relieves the verse of the problems with interpreting it as “appointed to,” and those problems inherent in Calvinist theistic determinism.[94]
2) The middle voice of tetagmenoi supports # 1 above in that it refers to the Gentiles themselves. It was these Gentiles, “as many as” were disposed to eternal life, who believed.
3) If one insists on tetagmenoi as meaning “appointed to,” it is reasonable to read this verse as Luke making a strong, affirming statement about God’s view of these Gentile proselytes to Judaism, that is, those God-fearers who desired to know and worship God. This “already appointed” perspective of the meaning of Acts 13:48 suggests that these Jews and God-fearing Gentiles still only understood their relationship to God in terms of the Old Testament revelation and from within their present-day Judaism. Nevertheless, being people of faith, they have already been saved under the old covenant. They had already been “appointed to eternal life.” But they have not yet heard of “the message of salvation” in Jesus Christ and his resurrection from the dead and the forgiveness of sins (vss. 30-38). Therefore, they have not yet “believed” in Jesus. But once Paul proclaimed to these proselytes and the other Gentiles (v. 48) who then heard about the forgiveness of sins in Jesus, they rejoiced and then believed. This, then, would be the meaning of “and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”
4)There is a certain ambiguity in Luke’s language. This makes the verse difficult to understand precisely. But it is doubtful that Luke intended to say, “And as many as were appointed by God to eternal life by unconditional election gave evidence of their election in that they believed.” That would set the verse at odds with the vast testimony of Scriptural teaching on human freedom, which places faith as the sole condition for the individual sinner to appropriate God’s gift (Rom. 5) of salvation.
5) Luke is stressing that the expansion of the church through the proclamation of the gospel from its Jewish roots in Jerusalem to the Gentile world all the way to Rome. This is God’s work by the Holy Spirit, which the book of Acts certainly affirms. This is why Luke can emphasize God’s role in the spread of the gospel, as in Acts 13:48. But this verse, interpreted in context, does not support the Calvinist’s universal divine causal determinism. Rather, this verse can be translated as consistent with the necessity of the individual’s response of faith for salvation. Indeed, in Greek, Luke places the aorist, active, indicative verb “they believed” at the forefront of the controversial word in the verse – tetagmenoi. Its position places some significant emphasis on believing. The Gentiles were disposed to eternal life, but in the Greek text, Luke prioritizes faith (“they believed”), and we therefore must incorporate the biblical testimony on the nature and function of faith in salvation as a control on our interpretation of Luke’s intended meaning here.
6) A non-Calvinist interpretation of Acts 13:48 is more plausible because it is indisputable that the immediate context and the Scriptures as a whole testify to significant human freedom, and it is seriously flawed hermeneutic that maintains that a soteriology that is in direct contradiction with this biblical truth is also biblical teaching. It is not. I. Howard Marshall states,
“The result of this study would seem to be that while the initiative of God in salvation is strongly stressed in Acts, Luke does not teach that individuals are predestined to salvation so that a secret plan is fulfilled in their acceptance or rejection of the gospel. When men reject the Gospel it is of their own choice.”[95]
In our study of the broader context of Acts, we found that persons themselves are responsible for their attitudes and actions, whether they reject God’s will and word or have a desire for and accept the gospel. What we find in Acts is that significant human freedom is no threat to God’s sovereignty and divine sovereignty does not completely overwhelm human freedom. The Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election is not found in the Bible.
Therefore, there are good reasons to conclude that the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty as deterministic not only goes beyond the teaching of Scripture but is contrary to it. And this brings us to another compelling reason to reject Calvinism’s theistic determinism.
7) We reject Calvinism’s theistic determinism for hermeneutical reasons, that is, because it generates substantial interpretive contradictions and incoherencies. Calvinism’s theistic determinism mires a spectrum of Christian teachings and doctrines (e.g., sovereignty, faith, election, the nature of man, predestination) in a morass of logical, moral, epistemological, practical, and theological incoherence.[96] Interpreting Scripture in such a way as to generate logical contradictions and moral incoherence is hermeneutically unsound and an indicator that Calvinist theology has strayed from biblical teaching. I concur with Marshall when he writes,
“What I am suggesting, then, is that the primary function of the election language in the Bible is to stress that God takes the initiative in salvation and that his purpose is to create a people who will attain to that salvation. But it is never said that this means either that there is a non-elect section of humanity who cannot attain to salvation or that there is a fixed group of previously chosen ‘elect’ who will be called, justified and glorified in some automatic fashion. We must not draw logical conclusions from the biblical material that go beyond its clear implications and which land us in logical contradiction with other biblical teaching.”[97]
It is incredible to many non-Calvinists that Calvinists do not find the contradictions and incoherencies inherent in their theology to be logically and morally disturbing and essential for determining a valid interpretation. Calvinists see no compelling interpretive or hermeneutical significance in the logical and moral incoherencies in their theology. But once the reasons and interpretive observations above are acknowledged as indispensable for proper biblical interpretation, an understanding of the verse becomes coherent within its context. This means that the Calvinist view that ignores the immediate context of this verse and the broader context of Acts is not a valid interpretation.
Final Thoughts
I have attempted to provide good reasons as to why the Calvinist interpretation is not a reasonable or a responsible interpretation of this verse. I believe there are very strong arguments against the Calvinist view. Taking the above observations into consideration, a more coherent biblical position is that God has decreed (divine sovereignty) that salvation would be conditioned on the individual’s response of faith (human freedom). Therefore, the divine sovereignty and human freedom, which are both taught in Scripture, can be understood without contradiction and incoherence. God reigns as a sovereign ruler over his creation, unfailingly accomplishing his plans and purposes. But the Calvinist insists upon accepting contradictory interpretations by adopting a hermeneutic of incoherence. They do this by insisting that God’s sovereignty be defined as a universal divine causal determinism. This is not an acceptable hermeneutic, and theistic determinism is not the biblical worldview. God does not cause all things to occur as they do by having willed and decreed “whatsoever comes to pass.” Jack Cottrell explains,
“…God has a purposive will by which he decrees that certain things will absolutely occur. This efficacious purpose is represented by the Greek terms boule (Acts 2:23; 4:28; 13:36; Eph. 1:11; 6:17), boulomai (1 Cor. 12:11; James 1:18), thelema (Matt. 26:42: John 6:40; Eph. I:5, 9, 11; Rev. 4:11), thelo (Rom. 9:18), prosthesis (Rom. 8:28; 9:11; Eph. 1:11; 3:11), and protithemi (Eph. 1:9).
Contrary to Calvinism, however, the Bible itself clearly shows that God’s purposive (efficacious) will does not include all things. It is not comprehensive; it does not include “whatsoever comes to pass.” This is seen in the fact that sometimes the above words that speak of God’s determinative purpose are used to represent God’s desire for certain things to happen. Jesus wanted the inhabitants of Jerusalem to come to him, but they refused (Matt. 23:37). God desires all men to be saved and to come to know the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), but this does not happen. The same words at times refer to contingencies that occur contrary to God’s own desire and will. Some little children will be lost, even though it is not the Father’s will (Matt. 18:14). Though it is contrary to God’s purpose, some will never repent and therefore will perish (2 Pet. 3:9).
The most fundamental aspect of God’s purposive will is that he has certain general purposes which he will infallibly accomplish through his sovereign power. For example, it is God’s eternal purpose to glorify himself, to share his goodness with other personal beings, and to provide salvation for sinners. Then, in order to accomplish these general purposes, God has also determined whatever specific means are necessary to bring them about. In order to manifest his glory, God determined to create all things (Rev. 4:11); in order to share his goodness, he created personal, freewill beings who are able to honor him and give him thanks (Rom. 1:21).
Having foreknown the entrance of sin into his creation, in order to provide salvation for sinners God determined to become incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth and to die for the sins of mankind (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28; Eph. 1:4-10; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 13:8). In order to accomplish his purpose through Jesus of Nazareth, God determined to use a specific nation (Israel) to prepare the way for his coming. Much of the biblical teaching about God’s purposive will refers to his creation and use of Israel as a nation (Deut. 7:6-8), his use of other nations related to Israel (Isa. 14:24-27; 37:26; 46:9-11), and his election and use of individuals within and related to Israel (e.g., Abraham, David, Cyrus, Pharaoh; see Rom. 9:7-18). Once his purpose for Israel and his initial redemptive purpose for Jesus had been accomplished, it was God’s eternal plan, through the preparatory work of chosen apostles (John 15:16; Gal. 1:15), to bring the church into existence by combining believing Jews and believing Gentiles together into his new “chosen people” (Rom. 11:17-24; Eph. 3:1-11). It was then his predetermined plan to use the church as the locus of salvation and the means of evangelism until the end of the age (Eph. 1:10).
In all of these matters God’s will or purpose is efficacious, causative, or determinative. Since the divine determination to bring them about occurred prior to creation, God’s purposive will is in essence equivalent to predestination. The main difference between the Arminian’s purposive will and the Calvinist’s eternal decree is that the latter is comprehensive while the former is not.”[98]
Hence, the crucial conclusion of our study is that the Calvinist understanding of Acts 13:48 as referring to unconditional election is not plausible. Indeed, although the non-Calvinist viewpoint is not without its difficulties, I have argued that the Calvinist view, as reflecting Calvinism’s determinism, is wrong because of its incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Therefore, it is irresponsible to hold such a view. If there is another viable option that is both exegetically and hermeneutically sound, that is, faithful to Scripture, but is not logically, theologically, and morally problematic as is Calvinism, then that is the interpretation that better reflects the author’s intent. Taking literary and historical context on board, along with sound logical and moral reasoning as essential interpretive tools, Acts 13:48 becomes a problem for Calvinism’s theistic determinism, but not for the non-Calvinist’s biblical understanding of divine sovereignty, the gospel, and faith.
Return to “The Doctrine of Election According to Scripture”
Footnotes
[1] Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 91.
[2] H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 59, 60.
[3] A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Bradman Press, 1934), 31. As quoted in H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 60.
[4] Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, 59.
[5] Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, 176-177.
[6] Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, 188.
[7] Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 177.
[8] Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, 181.
[9] Burton, New Testament Moods and Tenses, 6, as quoted in Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 178.
[10] H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 188.
[11] Richard Watson, Theological Institutes, 2 vols., (New York: Lane & Scott, 1850), vol. 2, 369-370. (See the Kessinger Publishing Reprint Series)
[12] William W. Klein, The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 121.
[13] I have inserted this footnote to explain the term “Rhemish.” With the assistance of AI, we learned the following: “Rhemish” = “of Rheims/Rhemes,” referring to the Rheims New Testament (1582), the English Roman Catholic translation produced at the English College in Rheims, France.
- The spelling varies: Rhemish, Rhemes, Rheims, Rhemish NT.
- It is the New Testament portion of what later became the Douay–Rheims Bible.
- It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, not from Greek manuscripts.
[14] See The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), Vol. 1, 471ff.
[15] Robert Shank, Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1970), 186.
[16] Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, 184.
[17] Dave Hunt, What Love Is This? (Sisters: Loyal Publishing, 2002), 210.
[18] F. F. Bruce, “Theophilos,” in New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., ed. I. Howard Marshall, A. R. Millard, and J. I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 1180.
[19] J. P. U Lilley, “Acts, Book of the” in New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., ed. I. Howard Marshall, A. R. Millard, and J. I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 11.
[20] Lilley, “Acts,” 11.
[21] Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, 183.
[22] But in so doing, God does not act arbitrarily, which would be in radical contradiction of I Tim. 2:4, II Pet. 3:9, and the many cognate passages affirming the will of God for the salvation of all men.
[23] Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament, pp. 153f.
[24] Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, pp. 183-184.
[25] Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, p. 186.
[26] Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized New Testament.
[27] Cf. Thayer.
[28] J. Vernon Bartlet, The New Century Bible: The Acts (Walter F. Adeney, edit.), ad loc.
[29] Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, p. 189.
[30] Richard Watson, Theological Institutes, 2 vols., (New York: Lane & Scott, 1850), vol. 2, 369. (See the Kessinger Publishing Reprint Series)
[31] It seems that W. E. Vine’s expository dictionary does not rightly consider the grammar when he states, “It is said of those who, having believed the Gospel, “were ordained to eternal life,” Acts 13:48.” – W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1966), 68.
[32] S.T. Bloomfield, The Greek Testament with English Notes, ad loc. From Shank, p. 186-187)
[33] Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized New Testament.
[34] Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, 186.
[35] J. Vernon Bartlet, The New Century Bible: The Acts (Walter F. Adeney, edit.), ad loc. From Shank, p. 187.
[36] James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), Vol. 2, pp. 152, 153. Buswell has referenced: Alford, Henry. “Commentary on Acts 13”. Alford’s Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary, 1863-1878. It may be accessed at https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hac/acts-13.html. See verse 48.
[37] See my “Why the Calvinist Views of Sovereignty and Salvation Are Almost Certainly False” section A. 3 for a brief assessment of this problem in Calvinism. For a more thorough treatment see David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), Chapter 4, “A Reformed Tradition Not Quite Right,” 65-81. See also Jerry Walls, “Divine Commands, Predestination, and Moral Intuition,” in The Grace of God, The Will of Man: A Case For Arminianism, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 261-276.
[38] Here I refer you to my historical survey of the Old Testament in which I give a fuller treatment of the nature of election in the Old Testament. This is essential for understanding the meaning and scope of election in the New Testament. I also refer you to the resources in the attached bibliography.
[39] See the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard; Matt. 20:1-16.
[40] Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 1:658. The NIV preserves the absolute sense of Luke’s statement.
[41] Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, 231.
[42] Cf. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 414, who argues that the word ὅσοι (hosoi, “as many as”) indicates that not all Gentiles believed, which makes sense of the later conflict among other Gentile women and men (see 13:50). The “predestination” of Gentiles for salvation is thereby qualified by the faith of individuals freely given.
[43] Robert W. Wall, “Acts,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, vol. 9, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2015), 151-152.
[44] We find this idea of Jewish rejection in Luke 7: 29, 30 ff., in the Parable of the Wedding Banquet in Matt. 22 especially vss. 8, 9, and in many other parables of Jesus.
[45] Richard Watson, Theological Institutes, vol. 2, 369.
[46] This is a major issue Paul seeks to deal with in Romans 9-11, not with respect to the Jew’s individual salvation, but whether God has failed with his “elect” people because they, as his own “chosen” people, have rejected their Messiah.
[47] Even though in Romans 9 Paul wrestles with why the Jews have rejected their Messiah and speaks of a hardening by God that is being brought about in Israel which serves the inclusion of the Gentiles into salvation as the new “the people of God,” that rejection of Christ by Israel as a whole and the subsequent hardening God brings upon them is something very different than teaching that an eternal divine decree determines the eternal destiny of every individual. Generally speaking, Romans 9 has to do with God’s sovereignty over the history of his people, Israel, and with bringing the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul is grappling with how it is that the very elect people of God have rejected their Messiah, and that being the case, how to understand God’s promises to Israel. In Romans 9, Paul is not expounding on how individuals become saved. To view Romans 9 as being about how an individual becomes saved would be to misconstrue the nature of God’s relationship to Israel in the Old Testament, fail to see the progressive nature of Jewish unbelief, and misunderstand Paul’s teaching on the salvation of the individual laid out in chapters 1 through 8, 10, and 11. The Calvinist view of chapter 9 is also incoherent with what is said of the nature of salvation in the immediate context of chapters 10 and 11. Again, there are important hermeneutical concerns here that cannot be cavalierly dismissed.
[48] Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930), Vol. III, 199-201.
[49] Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, 186.
[50] Ibid. 186.
[51] I highly recommend the following book. Perspectives on Election: 5 Views, Chad Owen Brand, ed., (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006). This is a very helpful resource for gaining perspective on the doctrine of election, along with other teachings from the different points of view. See especially chapter 3, Jack W. Cottrell’s chapter on “The Classical Arminian View of Election.” It is very informative, challenging, and for me biblically convincing.
[52] Grant R. Osborne, “Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975), 175.
[53] Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts, 283. He cites texts for the Old Testament, New Testament, Pseudepigrapha, and the Rabbis to defend the idea of enrollment in something like a book of life. See pp. 283-84 for his evidence. See also Lake/Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity, 160.
[54] Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 231.
[55] G. Delling, TDNT, 8:28.
[56] W. Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1973), 161.
[57] William W. Klein, The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 109-110.
[58] Grant R. Osborne, “Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975), 174
[59] I. Howard Marshall, “Predestination in the New Testament,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975), 130.
[60] Dale Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 338.
[61] Dale Moody, The Word of Truth, 339.
[62] Dale Moody, The Word of Truth, 340.
[63] Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 28.
[64] Ibid. 28.
[65] Ibid. 28-29.
[66] Ken Keathley, “The Molinist View of Election, or How to Be a Consistent Infralapsarian,” in Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, eds E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner, eds. (Nashville: B&H, 2008), 195..
[67] Keathley. The Molinist View of Election, 196.
[68] Jerry L. Walls, “Why No Classical Theist, Let Alone Orthodox Christian, Should Ever Be a Compatibilist”, Philosophia Christi, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2011, 91-92.
[69] New Bible Dictionary, 3rd. ed., “Acts, Book of the,” p. 12
[70] Dale Moody, The Word of Truth, 340-341.
[71] I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 3rd ed. (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), 272.
[72] Grant R. Osborne, “Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975), 175.
[73] I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 269.
[74] 1. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 276.
[75] Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lessons in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 157.
[76] Jack W. Cottrell, “Responses to Bruce A. Ware” in Perspectives on Election: Five Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 60.
[77] See John Miley, Systematic Theology, 2 vols., (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), vol. 2, 262.
[78] I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 94.
[79] For “humble yourselves,” see also 2 Chr. 7:14; 12:6, 7; 2 Chr. 30:11; Jer. 44:10; James 4:4-10.
[80] See Jn. 10:3-6, 11-16, 25-30, 37. Similarly, in John, the “sheep” are those whose hearts are such that they are responsive to the divine “voice” (Jn. 10:27 and in Acts 13:48, “glorifying the word of the Lord”). These “sheep” Jesus shepherds in a way that he will give them eternal life; they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of his hand (10:28). We can see in what sense these sheep can be said to be given to Jesus by the Father (10:29) without the need to introduce a static predestination. In Acts, these “God-fearing” Gentiles are already responsive to the Father within the limits of Judaism, which means they are evidencing faith (as Abraham did), and therefore the Father will give them to the Son as the locus of their salvation and their appointment to life eternal. In Acts, this is the “appointment” the Jews rejected (not all Jews as Jews, but only those who disbelieved, in contrast to Abraham, who believed and trusted in God), and what the Gentiles were “appointed” to (not all Gentiles, but only those who believed in the God of Israel as Abraham did). Thus, they too become a “child of Abraham.” (See the account of Zacchaeus the tax collector in Lu. 19-1-10). This response of faith, which is a free response of the individual themselves, reveals the condition of their heart over which they have oversight through their own will and choices. This must not simply be ignored, for the nature of faith has crucial hermeneutical and interpretive implications for this issue.
[81]J. Vernon Bartlet, The New Century Bible: The Acts (Walter F. Adeney, ed.), ad loc. From Shank p. 187.
[82] Richard Watson, Theological Institutes, 2 vols., 379-380.
[83] I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 93.
[84] Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, 187.
[85] Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 94.
[86] Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 274.
[87] Faith Because of Reason, “Does Acts 13:48 Support Calvinism?” https://calvinismanswered.homesteadcloud.com/acts-13-48 Last accessed 6/7/2026. At this site, you will find several very good exegetical treatments of Acts 13:48 from the non-Calvinist perspective.
[88] Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 94.
[89] For a fuller delineation of the issues here, see Chapter 4, “Why the Calvinist Views of Sovereignty and Salvation Are Certainly False.”
[90] I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 274.
[91] See Jerry L. Walls, “Divine Commands, Predestination and Moral Intuition” in The Grace of God, The Will of Man, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989). See also my Chapter 4, “Why the Calvinist Views of Sovereignty and Salvation Are Almost Certainly False.”
[92]Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 98.
[93] Calvin puts it this way, “We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.” – John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 926. Obviously, there is no message of the biblical “good news” here.
[94] He would also have to show that Paul’s use of the words “elect,” “election,” and “predestine” in other contexts, such as Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, is meant to teach a deterministic sovereignty and unconditional election. Suffice it to say that in those contexts too, other interpretations that are more logically and theologically coherent and consistent are possible and therefore preferred. I refer you to the accompanying bibliography for further study.
[95] I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 95-96.
[96] Again, for a fuller delineation of the issues, see Chapter 4, “Why the Calvinist Views of Sovereignty and Salvation Are Almost Certainly False.”
[97] I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 274.
[98] Jack. W. Cottrell, “The Classic Arminian View of Election” in Perspectives of Election: 5 Views, Chad Owen Brand, ed, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 98-99.
The Truth of the Gospel 