Acts 13:48

[GaryKey]

Recently I ran across some Anti-Calvinists who have been arguing Acts 13:48 should be translated "disposed" instead of "ordained" or "appointed". They cite Henry Alford as proof of their position and then rush to state how Piper loved Alford (in general). Friberg says it is technically possible to arrive at "disposed" but prefers "ordained" or "appointed". It reminds me of Jehovah's Witnesses running out and finding a Greek scholar that says it is technically possible to add the article "a" in front of "God" in John 1:1. Seems forced and unnatural.

Nearly every single Bible translation uses "ordained" or "appointed". I am not even sure if a single one uses "disposed".

I wanted to get better equipped from some of the fine scholars and teachers here. Thoughts on Alford's approach and why it seems to stand alone against most all translations. What in the context almost ensures that "ordained" or "appointed" is the proper landing spot? Looking forward to your thoughts

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The point is the people are acted upon, rather than acting. Even if "disposed" was a better rendering--highly debatable--this only pushes one back to the question of a proper gloss (specific definition/use) for the term. It doesn't mean that the people HAD the new or a preset disposition to be saved. That's not the issue. Who's *doing* the disposing?

 

[GaryKey]

The point is the people are acted upon, rather than acting. Even if "disposed" was a better rendering--highly debatable--this only pushes one back to the question of a proper gloss (specific definition/use) for the term. It doesn't mean that the people HAD the new or a preset disposition to be saved. That's not the issue. Who's *doing* the disposing?

Thank you. Can you elaborate on this a bit. In the context/text what is the evidence that points to God doing it? I am genuinely asking not challenging.

 

[GaryKey]

I ask this because they quickly run to 1 Cor 16:15 to claim self acting there. Is there a difference in structure between Acts 13:48 and 1 Cor 16:15 that should be observed (that I am missing)?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I ask this because they quickly run to 1 Cor 16:15 to claim self acting there. Is there a difference in structure between Acts 13:48 and 1 Cor 16:15 that should be observed (that I am missing)?

The big issue in this text comparison is that 1cor16:15 contains the actual Gk term for "themselves," not present in act13:48.

 

[GaryKey]

The big issue in this text comparison is that 1cor16:15 contains the actual Gk term for "themselves," not present in act13:48.

Thank you much for taking the time to respond. This is super helpful. Seems like their argument is focused solely on the voice (whether middle or passive).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thank you. Can you elaborate on this a bit. In the context/text what is the evidence that points to God doing it? I am genuinely asking not challenging.

I would say the presence of the copulative (be verb) further emphasizes the passivity of the "believers." Luke makes the passive emphatic, so we are forced to ask "Who but God?"

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thank you much for taking the time to respond. This is super helpful. Seems like their argument is focused solely on the voice (whether middle or passive).

I suppose Ellicot's commentary has the better of contrary opinion (than an appeal to 1Cor.16:15) when he suggests Act.20:13 and its use of a cognate word, Paul making an appointment or travel arrangement on his own or for himself (note use of M/P verb form). Again, there's no need for a helping verb in such an instance nor do we find it there.

In addition per Act.20:13, one might consider that Paul's "ordination" (one translation reads "commanded") pertains to his direction to his fellow travelers as much as explaining his own activity conducted as he planned.

I don't think the argument is "driven" by the voice at all, but by the need to deprive Calvinists of this text. One could agree with the standard rendering, and come up with an alternate cause; but making the believers in the verse self-appointed suits them better.

 

[GaryKey]

I suppose Ellicot's commentary has the better of contrary opinion (than an appeal to 1Cor.16:15) when he suggests Act.20:13 and its use of a cognate word, Paul making an appointment or travel arrangement on his own or for himself (note use of M/P verb form). Again, there's no need for a helping verb in such an instance nor do we find it there.

In addition per Act.20:13, one might consider that Paul's "ordination" (one translation reads "commanded") pertains to his direction to his fellow travelers as much as explaining his own activity conducted as he planned.

I don't think the argument is "driven" by the voice at all, but by the need to deprive Calvinists of this text. One could agree with the standard rendering, and come up with an alternate cause; but making the believers in the verse self-appointed suits them better.

When you say: "Again, there's no need for a helping verb in such an instance nor do we find it there."

Do you mean in 13:48 or in 20:13?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

When you say: "Again, there's no need for a helping verb in such an instance nor do we find it there."

Do you mean in 13:48 or in 20:13?

The imperfect active indicative 3p, "they were" is a seperate term in Act.13:48, an additional word of text. The final 6 words are a noun-phrsse, led off by a nominative pronoun indicating apposition/equality or exposition of the aforementioned Gentiles who are *they* who believed (main verb).

Them that say the believers self-appointed could just as well not have the "were" since they are only interested in the verb of "appointment." What do they suppose is the work of the other verb?

In Act.20:13, you have Paul acting on his own or for himself, and there it is plain how in such case there's no need for that extra verb.

My explanation for "why" is that Luke is putting emphasis on the pre-existing fact, with a current result (i.e. imperfect use) that is relevant to the response just observed among those Gentiles.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Admittedly, the appointment verb is in participle form, but still in the circumstances if it merely describes the believers' precondition, the helping verb is superfluous

 

[MW]

What in the context almost ensures that "ordained" or "appointed" is the proper landing spot?

The scope of the narrative explains the inclusion of the Gentiles as a part of the purpose of God. Verse 47 says, "For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth."

Commentators note that this is one of the major themes of the book. E.g., I. Howard Marshall: "Secondly, a key point in Acts is that it shows how the gospel was meant for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews. Part of the demonstration lies in Luke’s claim that what took place in the early church was in accordance with prophecy. Luke’s purpose was to show not only that the coming of Jesus fulfilled prophecy, but also that the rise of the church and the spread of salvation to the Gentiles fulfilled the prophecies in the Old Testament and the promises of Jesus (see Luke 24:47; Acts 1:4f., 20; 2:16-21; 3:24; 10:43; 13:40f., 47; 15:15-18; 28:25-28)."

The idea that their action in some way sealed their own destiny would introduce a whole new theological concept and require us to regard the inclusion of the Gentiles as somewhat fortuitous. Luke is showing that divine appointment was behind the faith of the Gentiles.

 

[ReformedChristian]

Recently I ran across some Anti-Calvinists who have been arguing Acts 13:48 should be translated "disposed" instead of "ordained" or "appointed". They cite Henry Alford as proof of their position and then rush to state how Piper loved Alford (in general). Friberg says it is technically possible to arrive at "disposed" but prefers "ordained" or "appointed". It reminds me of Jehovah's Witnesses running out and finding a Greek scholar that says it is technically possible to add the article "a" in front of "God" in John 1:1. Seems forced and unnatural.

Nearly every single Bible translation uses "ordained" or "appointed". I am not even sure if a single one uses "disposed".

I wanted to get better equipped from some of the fine scholars and teachers here. Thoughts on Alford's approach and why it seems to stand alone against most all translations. What in the context almost ensures that "ordained" or "appointed" is the proper landing spot? Looking forward to your thoughts

Even if it means disposed Scripture says God is the one that does it

Proverbs 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.”

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.”

The KJV uses Disposing in verse 33 of Proverbs 16 in Hebrew it means proper, fitting, measure, fitness, custom, manner, plan, judgment etc

Strong's Number 4941 Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com

Strong's #4941 מִשְׁפָּט mishpat {mish-pawt'} From H8199; properly a verdict (favorable or unfavorable) pronounced judicially, especially a sentence or formal decree (human or (particularly) divine law, individual or collectively), including the act, the place, the suit, the crime, and the...

lexiconcordance.com