Here are 7 Reasons from Context & Grammar Showing Acts 13:48 Gives an Example of Personal Response to the Gospel… not Divine Election of Individuals before Creation
Context
1. The context contrasts the Jews who judged themselves “unworthy of everlasting life” (vs 46) with the Gentiles who “arranged themselves (got in line) for everlasting life” (vs 48).
2. The context of verse 48 has five verbal actions (heard, were glad, glorified, arranged, believed), and one would normally expect all those verbal actions to be accomplished by the same subject – the Gentiles who were there that day.
3. The context does not mention God as an actor in this story at all, but only the Jews, Paul and Barnabas, and the Gentiles, except perhaps in the last words of verse 52 – “filled…with the Holy Spirit”. Therefore the implied subject of this participle should naturally be found among one of these actors, not God, unless a similar verse in Luke or Acts can be shown where Luke introduces God’s activity of one action into a list of actions done by another subject.
Grammar
4. The grammar (semantic range of meaning) of Greek participle – τεταγμένοι – must be determined by context since the Greek word τασσω, is a generic word, almost exactly like our English word “arrange”. The choice of “ordain” is clearly interpretive, wrongly implying that God must be the actor of this “arranging”.
5. The grammar (inflected form) of Greek participle – τεταγμένοι – denotes that a choice of interpretation has to be made between the middle or passive voice, since both are spelled the same way. The passive voice denotes action received by the subject (“were arranged”) and the middle voice denotes reflexive action by the subject (“arranged themselves” or “arranged for themselves”).
This verb – τασσω – is only used 9 times in the NT and twice are in the active voice, with one of those instances of the active voice clearly showing the action being done reflexively (like middle voice) by the subject on themselves (1Cor 16:15). The other instance in active voice, in Acts 15:2, shows that the elders “arranged” for Paul to represent them in Jerusalem (also an indirect reflexive idea). Of the seven other instances, one is clearly middle in form, Matt 28:16, where Christ arranges for Himself to meet with the apostles in Galilee. The last six are middle or passive in form, so the context must determine which fits best.
Of the last six, the middle reflexive idea fits best for Matt 8:9, Luke 7:8, and Acts 28:23 for they are much like Matt 28:16 where a person is arranging something or someone for his own benefit. The passive idea, where the subject receives the action, arranged by someone else, fits best for Acts 22:10 and Rom 13:1, and in those two contexts God can be assumed to be the one doing the arranging, though there is no hint in those contexts that He had to do it before creation. Since the middle/reflexive idea fits well with six of the eight contexts, it can be expected to also fit as normal for the ninth context in Acts 13:48, making the reflexive idea found in seven of nine NT instances of this verb.
6. The grammar (lexical evidence) of this same verb as a middle participle was used in Classical Greek of soldiers and ships getting in line, according to an example found in Liddell Scott. (I, 1. fall in, form in order of battle… formed in a circle… having drawn up their ships in four lines). It is not hard to then visualize that when Paul and Barnabas said out loud that they were now turning to the Gentiles, that those Gentiles rushed to “arrange themselves” in line to profess their public commitment of faith and be baptized. Luke is saying that as many as got in line, seeking for everlasting life through the Gospel, did indeed become public believers!
In Acts 18:6 the word for “opposed” is – ἀντιτασσομένων – which is the antonym for the participle – τεταγμένοι – here in 13:48. This antonym in 18:6 is middle or passive in form, but there is no doubt that in that verse the middle voice is the preferred choice. Those Jews, like those in Acts 13 were arranging themselves in opposition to Paul and Silas.
7. The grammar (less contextual but possible) concedes that God or the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, might be the main subjects of this one of five verbal ideas in 13:48. That is, there could be the passive idea of God or the apostles having first arranged for the Gentiles to hear the Gospel for the purpose of their receiving everlasting life. However, the passive verbal concept of those offering this arrangement assumes a voluntary response of those being so arranged. And Luke confirms the acceptance of that arrangement by them by confirming their act as a personal commitment of trust in the active voice (“believed”), and not in the passive voice (“were converted”).
If Calvinists have as many contextual/grammatical reasons for the idea of divine ordination before creation being taught in this verse, let them show the evidence. They will look in vain for “God” as the declared subject of a verb or the phrase “before creation” in this context.
Thank you, Brian, once again!
Whoo Hoo! Another “gotcha” verse by Calvinists bites the dust!
100% of Calvinistic proof texts are contrary to accurate translation or context.
br.d
.
From the article
-quote
2. The context of verse 48 has five verbal actions (heard, were glad, glorified, arranged, believed), and one would NORMALLY expect all those verbal actions to be accomplished by the same subject – the Gentiles who were there that day.
.
Calvinism as a system of RADICAL DISTINCTIONS:
This highlights what Dr. William Lane Craig points out.
That Calvinism is a system of RADICAL DISTINCTIONS
.
1) Calvinism is system in which ALL CHOICES concerning what will exist within creation – are made at the foundation of the world.
.
2) At the foundation of the world ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS exist for Calvin’s god to CHOOSE between.
.
3) But for every human event and every human impulse ONLY ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION can be granted existence
.
4) After that divine CHOICE is made – the decree makes it infallibly immutable. Those CHOICES cannot be UN-Made, nor can they be RE-made. Not even by Calvin’s god
.
5) Thus within the domain of creation – Calvin’s god no longer has CHOICE in the matter of anything – because he has already made all choices which can be made.
.
So the Calvinist is faced with a god who – within the domain of creation – has NO CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
And as Brian’s article points out – that is not what one would normally expect
.
This serves as one of many examples of the RADICAL DISTINCTIONS which are found in Calvinism.
.
And this is why the Oxford Handbook on Calvin and Calvinism – classifies Calvinism as a System of Perplexities
.
THE DIFFICULTY IN MARKETING A SYSTEM OF PERPLEXITIES
The difficulty for the Calvinist becomes obvious.
.
The Calvinist is saddled with a belief system which is saturated with self-contradicting perplexities
A belief system full of concepts which NORMAL Christians would not normally expect
.
Calvinism is an ABERRANT belief system.
.
And this explains why Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language.
In order for the Calvinist to get NORMAL Christians to buy the product – the Calvinist has to figure out ways of making the product APPEAR NORMAL
.
AN ABERRANT BELIEF SYSTEM TRYING TO MAKE ITSELF APPEAR NORMAL
.
Consequently – Calvinism is an ABERRANT belief system.
And Calvinists are desperately trying to make their belief system APPEAR NORMAL
Speaking of grammar, the Greek puts believe prior to ordain, predicating arrange upon faith. No faith, no ordained to eternal life.
The fact that Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree on a bible verse despite both appealing to grammar and context, is a reason for skeptics to classify biblical soteriology as fatally ambiguous and thus not capable of reasonably certain interpretation.
Actually Barry, the Calvinist and Arminian have to read in their theology into this verse, instead of appealing directly to context and grammar. I suggest you do a survey of commentaries to confirm this. You can then show me how the responded to the context and grammar points I made.
Romans 8:29-30
This is clearly a Provisionist passage. Only those God “foreknew” according to Paul’s meaning of that word, are the ones God Provided also a predestination, a calling, a justification, and a glorification at the same moment He “foreknew” them.
The Calvinist and Arminian have to slip in added words to “foreknew.” The Calvinist adds – “whom He foreknew <>”. The Arminian adds – “whom He foreknew <>”. But the passage just says, “whom He foreknew”… period! That’s everyone whom He “foreknew”!
That’s why the word “foreknew” can’t mean prescience in this context. For God foreknows everyone in the sense of prescience. So, unless you’re a universalist, the Calvinist and Arminian are correct that there must be a limited group meant by “foreknew”. But that group is not identified and limited by “what” God foreknew but by “whom” He foreknew by experience… that is, whom He knew in an intimate and “foremost” way.
His intimate relationship knowledge cannot exist with a person before the person exists. This is not talking about God loving stories in His mind, but real persons who exist. That love only has a beginning at the moment of a person’s regeneration into God’s family and becoming then known to Him as one of His beloved at that moment. (Rom 9:25) Before that moment they were not His people.
Paul uses this meaning of intimate knowledge for the word “foreknow” of people in each of the other two times he uses this word (Acts 26:5, Rom 11:2). God didn’t have this intimate knowledge before creation with anyone but other members of the Godhead. There weren’t any other individuals back then! This intimate knowledge of a person by God starts at the moment they get saved, not before!
Here’s a good video explanation by Leighton Flowers. https://youtu.be/5aqR23SrHy0
br.d
To add to the discussion of Calvinism and Arminianism reading things into the text – I note the fact that Arminius was at one time a 100% devoted Calvinist.
.
Arminius – at some later point deviated and was then accused of radically deviating from Calvin.
.
However – Arminius written responses show that he rejected the idea that he had radically deviated from Calvin.
.
A critical difference for the Arminian today – is that he does not hold Divine Determinism as EXHAUSTIVE as is the case with Calvinism. So we have a partial deviation.
.
We also find today many Arminians defending Calvinists – and defending aspects of Calvinism.
.
So it would make sense that many of the things which the Calvinist reads into the text – have also been historically adopted within Arminianism.
Sorry, Barry, I pasted in the wrong comment in my first reply… but the idea is the same… you can look at commentaries by Calvinists and Arminians on this verse and see if they even mention the grammar and context points I made, and what rebuttal they give. I think you’ll find, as I have, that most read their theology into the verse without seeing what the grammar and context point to. The KJV translation of “ordain” is a good example of translators reading their theology into a Greek word found in this verse that is not theological at all!
Barry,
is a reason for skeptics to classify biblical soteriology as fatally ambiguous and thus not capable of reasonably certain interpretation.
.
br.d
No that conclusion would be a non-sequitur.
The issue would not necessarily hinge upon “soteriology as fatally ambiguous”
That conclusion does not adequately take into consideration the fact that there are contending interpretations for scripture in general.
.
One critical issue concerning interpretation of scripture has to do with with the way the human mind interprets data in general.
.
The human mind interprets data in accordance to what it already holds as unquestionable truth.
.
For example – there was a period of time in which the sun rotating around the earth was conceived as unquestionable truth.
.
Any Bible reader at that time who also considered scripture to affirm unquestionable truth – would quite naturally interpret the text of scripture to affirm a geocentric model of the solar system.
.
As Dr. Gordon Fee has been noted to say – what needs to be taken into consideration is “WHAT INFORMS” the mind as it is reading the text of scripture.
.
For the Calvinist – EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) is embraced as unquestionable truth.
Therefore the Calvinist interpretation of the text of scripture – is quite naturally going to be bent into the direction of affirming that which the Calvinist mind holds as unquestionable truth.
“The fact that Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree on a bible verse despite both appealing to grammar and context, is a reason for skeptics to classify biblical soteriology as fatally ambiguous and thus not capable of reasonably certain interpretation.”
This thought is utterly false. IF your position is logical, ANY and ALL disagreement means that all views are wrong, just because there is disagreement.
Disagreement does not means nobody can rightly understand.
“This thought is utterly false. IF your position is logical, ANY and ALL disagreement means that all views are wrong, just because there is disagreement. Disagreement does not mean nobody can rightly understand.”
———–False. First, it doesn’t matter that disagreement doesn’t necessarily mean nobody can understand. I wasn’t arguing necessity. I was arguing reasonableness. It is reasonable for skeptics to infer fatal ambiguity in the bible from Calvinist/Arminian disagreements at the scholarly level. Reasonableness can possibly exist even where truth doesn’t, because “reasonable” is not a synonym for “truth” or “correct”.
Thus disagreement can certainty and reasonably imply, even if not necessarily imply, that the subject matter in dispute is too ambiguous to be resolved with reasonable certainty. Second, the Calvinists and Arminians have had their respective scholars disagreeing with each other for centuries about 2,000 year old statements. If the bible were “clear” on the matter, you wouldn’t expect so many scholars to so consistently disagree with each other over the meaning of words. How do you manage to all agree on Jesus’ messiahship but not on how God “ordains”? Could it be that the bible is clearer on Jesus’ messiahship than it is on how God “ordains”?
br.d
I think everyone can agree – the Bible was never intended to be a textbook on Metaphysics or Philosophies concerning causal inevitability.
.
These ideas are obviously imposed upon the scripture based upon human theological agendas.
.
The fact that Determinism is inevitably self-defeating doesn’t help it any.
.
1) Every FALSE PERCEPTION within the human brain would be determined by factors external to the brain.
2) All FALSE PERCEPTIONS persist within that brain – as long as an infallible decree is in effect
3) Thus the human brain is not the DETERMINING FACTOR of whether FALSE PERCEPTIONS will exist within it.
4) If that human brain were permitted to discern any FALSE PERCEPTIONS as FALSE – it would no long have those FALSE PERCEPTIONS – which is impossible because doing so would countervail an infallible decree.
5) In such case the brain is not granted the ability to differentiate a TRUE PERCEPTION from a FALSE PERCEPTION
6) Thus the brain has NO CERTAINTY if anything it thinks concerning any proposition is TRUE or FALSE because it has NO CERTAINTY that its PERCEPTIONS on that proposition are FALSE PERCEPTIONS decreed to infallibly exist within the brain. And that decree does not permit that brain the ability to discern them as FALSE.
.
Thus on EDD – the human brain is not granted the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on the matter of anything.
Hence the self-defeating nature of Determinism.
.
There is a “Fatal flaw” in any interpretation of scripture designed to affirm that which is inevitably self-defeating.
Barry,
The problem is, Acts 13:48 does not say that God ordained anything. God isn’t even mentioned in that verse. That’s my argument.
Ed Chapman
Brian,
You hit this one out of the ball park!!
I just wish that the translators of the numerous English versions of the Bible had used a completely different word than, “ordained”, given that the Greek word isn’t defined as other uses of the English word for, “ordained”.
The KJV wants children to suffer, after all!!
Ed Chapman
Brian,
Could it be that since those who rejected the word judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, those who did not reject it, namely (the Gentiles), judged themselves worthy? And that having not rejected it they believed.
This would seem to be the normal process for anyone who believes as would rejecting the word be the normal process for anyone not believing.
And so those who did not reject the word but believed, judged themselves worthy of eternal life. Therefore the context shows it was their choice.
I think Aidan I did make that observation in my first comment. 😀
That’s okay, Brian, I wasn’t trying to be _antitasso_ to you.😎
Gramattically, belief comes before arrangement in the Greek. The translators (44 out of 47) of the KJV were Calvinists and made not a few ‘errors” (I think purposefully) and most Bibles just follow their folly.
The Greek says all who believed were arranged, appointed unto eternal life.
Actually, Art, grammatically, as many as arranged themselves is normally taken as prior to their believing. The periphrastic construction of the imperfect “were” with the perfect participle “arranged” would literally be understood as “as many as had arranged themselves, believed”.
There is an abnormal possibility to take the aorist “believed” as prior, as “had already believed”, but that would definitely be an interpretive choice, imo.
Hermeneutic implications (from wikipedia Greek Aroist)
Because the aorist was not maintained in either Latin or the Germanic languages, there have long been difficulties in translating the Greek New Testament into Western languages. The aorist has often been interpreted as making a strong statement about the aspect or even the time of an event, when, in fact, due to its being the unmarked (default) form of the Greek verb, such implications are often left to context. Thus, within New Testament hermeneutics, it is considered an exegetical fallacy to attach undue significance to uses of the aorist.[13] Although one may draw specific implications from an author’s use of the imperfective or perfect, no such conclusions can, in general, be drawn from the use of the aorist, which may refer to an action “without specifying whether the action is unique, repeated, ingressive, instantaneous, past, or accomplished.”[13] In particular, the aorist does not imply a “once-for-all” action, as it has commonly been misinterpreted, although it frequently refers to a simple, non-repeated action.[14]
(13) D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, Baker Book House, 1984, ISBN 0-8010-2499-4, p. 70.
(14) Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed., InterVarsity Press, 2006, ISBN 0-8308-2826-5, p. 69.
Since the Aorist is not indicative of past, present or future. I cannot see your point as accurate. The sentence structure shows that one verbe is dependent upon the other, not two unrelated claimes, Thus arrangement is the main verb or believed it and the other contingent upon the other. The actual word order reads, all who believed were arranged, not all who were arranged believed.
Art, the Aorist Indicative is definitely subject to past time almost always, except perhaps in gnomic teaching passages. Yes, the aspect of the Aorist needs one to give more careful attention to the context and etymology of the verb, but since the Imperfect indicative definitely points to continuous action in past time, the simple or complete action in past time would be a reasonable suggestion when using the Aorist.
br.d
Art – please be advised – SOT101 does not allow links to other web-sites to be added to user posts.
You didn’t know – so I will go ahead and delete this link from your post.
.
Thanks
br.d
Hearing, moreover, the ethnos rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord. moreover, believing those things, were appointed to life eternal.
That is the word order. I do not think I missed a word. Auxialliar verbs are included, in English, as they are simply part of the Greek conjugation and must be ‘added’ (in text, not meaning) to the English. I see NO reflexive to support self appointment.
Contingency is applied, as appointment to life eternal is based upon something.
It is not based upon hearing, nor rejoicing, nor glorifying, but upon faith, believing.
Doctrinally, if beliefe is not there, you have an appointment of life eternal without faith, which is not biblical.
In a matter of fact, hearing, rejoicing and glorifying can be removed from the sentence and still have a grammatical phrase of, “The Ethnos, moreover, believing, those things were appointed to life eternal.”
Greek like almost all languages, reads, for understanding, their word order (adjectives notwithstanding) So having appointment as the last verb, yet not last word, practically disqualifies the thought that appointment is to be understood as prior to faith, believing.
Literally, Art, the subject of the last verb, “believed,” is more likely “as many as had been arranged for everlasting life”, not “the Gentiles”. Once again you are ignoring the pluperfect meaning of the periphrastic construction that forms the subject of the verb “believed” and identifies the subject as those who “had been arranged”.
I agree with that interpretation, Brian. That is the reason I simply stated that I typed out the word order. Even with the simple word order reading, and definitely verb order, puts the ordering as the very last thing considered and is the result of what comes prior.
I do not think the Aorist is ever the contingent tense.
“the pluperfect meaning of the periphrastic construction that forms the subject” Is invalid as the subject cannot have a tense. The subject cannot have a tense, adjectives cannot have a tense, even adverbs cannot have a tense. Even a past participle does not strictly have a tense. Its tense is in the auxilliary verb.
Verbs and only verbs have a tense. If you have a phrase that is, as a whole, being used as a subject or object, no consideration, at all, is given to the sentence structure within that phrase. (ie “Johnny was walking to the store” is a simple sentence to diagram. VS “Johnny be walkin’ to the store” is a simple sentence to diagram.)
“Literally, Art, the subject of the last verb, “believed,” is more likely “as many as had been arranged for everlasting life”
Brian, I forgot to include that, as written in the Greek, Believed is not the last verb, ordered is.
Well, Art, we will just have to disagree. Look up periphrastic constructions that give a pluperfect meaning sometime, and consider how the last clause acts as the subject of “believed.” I’ve nothing more to add. Enjoy the rest of your day.
thanks for your cordiality. I had to look up periphrastic construction. it seems to be a $10 term, instead of saying tense of a verb. French, notoriously, has 27 verb tenses. I have forgotten most of them.
I will take back my statement that phrases cnnot have tenses, sinse this is speaking of tenses. While reading on it, I have found that the predicate usage means more of a state than an action, nearly always..
In any event, you and I generally agree that the arrangement is due, linguistically, and contingent upon the believing or having faith.
I hope that I did not come off as arrogant, as I definitely did not want that. Ihave tried to write without passion, which comes off as cold, which in turn, comes off as arrogant to some.
Oh, I was not ignoring it at all, I was just using a different set of terminology for what is essentially the same thing.
In the French, one can say something akin to (not an actual conjugated tense, btw) to I would have been starting to finish building, but in one word. English is a poor language in that we cannot, yet I also think it also is a more exacting language by necessitating more words rather then tenses, accents and so on.
Anyone familiar with the Greek recognizes the multiple mistakes and problems with your argument.
For one thing, you repeatedly conflate the indirect middle with the direct middle in your examples of the usage. There’s no mention of the fact that the direct middle (the use you’re insisting on) had largely fallen out of usage (with the exception of certain idiomatic and causative uses) in the Koine period. The verb τάσσω is not one of those exceptions.
The reflexive meaning (that they did the action to themselves) was usually expressed using an active form of the verb in conjunction with a reflexive pronoun (like in the examples you pointed to of τάσσω being used in a reflexive sense). τεταγμένοι in Ac.13:48 isn’t active and doesn’t have a reflexive pronoun. The redundant middle would carry the same meaning, but it also requires a reflexive pronoun. Since there’s no reflexive pronoun and τάσσω isn’t one of those idiomatic verbs, the use you’re insisting on isn’t an option. Daniel Wallace gives a lengthy explanation of this in “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”. I know you have the book, but you fail to mention any of it. You also fail to cite a single lexical source that agrees with you that τεταγμένοι is in the middle voice at all. BDAG lists it as passive.
Another thing you conveniently failed to mention was the pluperfect periphrastic construction in Ac.13:48. This is at the heart of what makes this verse so devastating to your position, yet you don’t even attempt to address it. The appointment to eternal life took place prior to the Gentiles believing. Their appointment to eternal life was already a done deal with ongoing consequences and/or results at the time that they believed (implying that their belief was the consequence of their prior appointment to eternal life). Surely you don’t think the Gentiles appointed themselves to eternal life before they ever believed!?!
Your article may reassure people in your own camp, who aren’t familiar with the original language, that it’s alright to continue believing what they’re already invested in believing, but anyone who reads Greek knows better. Even committed non-Calvinists who can read Greek recognize the pluperfect periphrastic construction and don’t attempt to claim that τεταγμένοι is a direct middle. The only non-Calvinist understanding of this verse that’s grammatically and syntactically possible is the extremely weak claim that, although almost the whole city came out to hear Paul and Barnabas, only those who were already God fearing Gentiles from the synagogue believed.
“The appointment to eternal life took place prior to the Gentiles believing. Their appointment to eternal life was already a done deal with ongoing consequences and/or results at the time that they believed…”
Sorry, but you have nothing to cite, in or out of this ‘verse’ to show such a claim.
It is futile for 100% of mankind to argue a ‘verse’. They simply do not exist. I am guess that you know that fact, yet have not studied the developement and codification of the Chapter and verse overlay and its one and only purpose.
Verses are NOT to be viewed as stand-alone, context-free, doctrinal statements, unless they are a clear summation fo previous statements. Such summations are common, even today. The bible sparsely employs them.
I suggest that you read my comments above. Like nearly all languages, verb order rules the day. Being ordered/arranged unto life eternal, is the resulting condition, fully contingent upon belief. It is not contingent upon hearing, nor rejoicing nor glorifying and it definitely is barred from being viewed as the man verb upon which the rest of the phrase is built upon.
Giving you credit on one point, there is no clue of a reflexive pronoun.
You’re making some mighty big claims about “nearly all languages”. I can tell you aren’t familiar with Greek or any highly inflected language. I cited the pluperfect periphrastic construction. In most cases, the word order and position of the verb within a Greek phrase doesn’t matter. Subjects are in the nominative case whether they appear before or after a verb. Look into the meaning behind an imperfect indicative form of εἰμί followed by a perfect participle and then get back to me about the relative time relation of the participle to the main finite verb. If you do that, you’ll understand exactly why I said what I said and why your statement, “Being ordered/arranged unto life eternal, is the resulting condition, fully contingent upon belief” can’t be true.
Have a good night.
Thank you Matt for your thoughtful reply. I didn’t mention the perfect pluperfect meaning, but did always put the action of believing after the Gentiles arranging of themselves to receive everlasting life.
And the recent introduction of the passive into the Greek Future and Aorist tenses had not removed the original middle reflexive emphasis as being possible in verbs constructed as middle/passive. The Greek reader would have defaulted to the older middle before considering the newer passive.
There was no necessity for Luke to use the Active with a reflexive pronoun like Paul did. That was just an alternative construction to express the middle reflexive idea. That construction which Paul used did prove the action of the main verb could be used reflexively, perhaps better for a direct reflexive idea. The Acts 13:48 would be an indirect middle idea, for no one can directly arrange for themselves to receive everlasting life, but indirectly they certainly could by responding to the gospel, as those Gentiles definitely were showing to Luke that day they were doing.
Thanks for your response. I just typed out a response (on my phone) and accidentally deleted it.
Your reply doesn’t work though. First, there was no older middle for the readers to revert back to. As you mentioned, there weren’t seperate middle and passive forms in the perfect tense (only in the future and aorist), so I’m not sure what you mean by saying, “The Greek reader would have defaulted to the older middle before considering the newer passive”. Also, the direct middle had fallen out of use in the Koine period, because it was too subtle for people who didn’t speak Greek as their first language, which would have been the majority of the empire. In addition to that, the use of the active + reflexive pronoun construction to convey a reflexive meaning was also the most common way of doing that in the older Classical period also.
You said, “There was no necessity for Luke to use the Active with a reflexive pronoun like Paul did. That was just an alternative construction to express the middle reflexive idea”.
But Luke used the same active + reflexive pronoun construction as Paul to express the reflexive idea elsewhere, including just two verses earlier in v.46. It’s also hard to consider the middle/passive from without a reflexive pronoun as “just an alternative construction to express the middle reflexive idea” when it’s so rare and limited to so few verbs (usually that inherently carry a reflexive meaning in themselves).
Also, the semantic range of τάσσω is much larger than “arrange”. BDAG also includes: put in place, order, fix, determine, and appoint. It identifies the usage in Ac.13:48 as passive and specifically says, “of a person put into a specific position… belong to be classed among those possessing”.
You also said that “Ac.13:48 would be an indirect middle idea”. Are you claiming that τεταγμένοι is an indirect middle, or just saying that’s how you think the overall meaning works out? It would seem like you were changing your argument if you were claiming τεταγμένοι was an indirect middle. It couldn’t be an indirect middle, because there’s no question of who’s being appointed (the Gentiles). If they were the ones doing the appointing, then it wouldn’t be indirect, and if God was doing the appointing, then it would be passive. So there’s no chance of it being an indirect middle.
You recognize the pluperfect, but it seems like you’re saying that the Gentiles lined up for an altar call before professing belief to Paul and Barnabas, and that lining up was how they “arranged” themselves for eternal life? Do you really think Paul had them come down for an altar call? Didn’t that practice start in the 19th century? Where is any of that in the text? I just don’t see any way to see that explanation as anything other than reading things into the text that aren’t there to get away from what it says so clearly. Wouldn’t they have already believed and that would be the reason they got in line? Do you think they had to say a sinner’s prayer at the front of the line before their belief was official? Of course, I don’t think Luke intended for anyone to think τεταγμένοι meant they lined up to profess their faith to Paul and Barnabas, but is that really what you’re saying? I’m asking sincerely, so don’t read that as though it was meant to be read in a condescending tone.
It’s getting late, so I’m going to reply to one other reply on here and get some sleep. Have a good night.
Matt,
You wrote: “Wouldn’t they have already believed and that would be the reason they got in line?”
If “faith alone” is true and they had already believed, wouldn’t they already be saved? Why then would they need to get in line for eternal life if they were already saved?
Aidan,
BINGO! Oh, wait, I’m not Catholic…lol. But anyway, that’s what makes the doctrines of grace (prevenient/irresistable) to be nonsense doctrines. They gotta be saved before they believe? That’s why I don’t buy off on Original Sin/Doctrines of Grace/Total Depravity, etc.
Ed
Ed,
You’re right! Even the doctrine of BINGO makes more sense than these.
If only I were a Catholic again!!!!🙄🙄🙄😇
That was my point. Brian recognized that the pluperfect periphrastic construction required the Gentiles who believed to have been appointed to eternal life prior to the time when they believed. He was claiming that the appointment was actually them having “arranged” themselves in some sort of line or group to come forward and profess their belief to Paul and Barnabas. I was simply making the point that their belief couldn’t have actually been preceded by their “arrangement” (as the pluperfect requires), even with all that unjustified speculation added to the text.
Hi Matt,
So do ye both recognize that the “appointment” to eternal life happens before belief, AND that the eternal life itself comes “having” believed? But your disagreement is on WHO does the “arranging or appointing.” Brian believes it is “themselves” who do the arranging, but you believe it is God who does the arranging here?
But you contend that Brian’s position would in fact violate the “pluperfect construction” because why would they arrange themselves for anything unless they already believed? Thus he is not being consistent with what he knows the pluperfect requires. On the other hand, you believe that God is the actor here, not because He is mentioned in the text itself, but because you believe God is always the actor who personally appoints a person to eternal life before they believe, correct?
But if you are a Calvinist, that would mean you believe God “regenerates” that person BEFORE belief. But if a person is regenerated before faith, then they have the new-life prior to believing? That would ultimately make your position on the (pluperfect construction), the “appointment” to eternal life before belief — mean eternal life BEFORE faith. If so, that would contradict scripture which teaches that salvation is through faith, not before it! This is in no way an attack on you, but a defense against what Calvinism teaches contrary to scripture!
Regards,
Aidan
One of my original criticisms of what Brian wrote was that he didn’t mention the pluperfect periphrastic construction at all. He responded by saying that he recognized it and wasn’t claiming that their belief preceded their “arrangement”. He seems to take “believed” as going forward to profess belief to Paul and Barnabas as in some type of altar call, not the actual cognitive and heartfelt act of trusting in Christ. He says they arranged themselves into a line or group to go forward to profess their belief, so by reading a bunch of stuff into the text and taking “believed” to actually mean telling Paul and Barnabas about their belief, he arranged the order of the actions to agree with the pluperfect meaning in the syntax of the clause.
As for appointment to eternal life, to be appointed to something doesn’t mean you possess it already. I can be appointed to see the doctor next week (I have an appointment). That doesn’t mean I’ve seen him already. The word ordained can have the same meaning.
I also view regeneration as the work of the Spirit in the heart of a person which leads to faith. God overcomes or breaks down the natural aversion to unreservedly putting Him on the throne of a person’s heart (removing the heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh) and illuminates the truth of the gospel, so that the person freely follows what they now recognize to be true. God can appoint for a person to have eternal life in eternity past before they possess it and before they even exist. God can work in a spiritually dead person’s heart in a way that necessarily produces faith before they’re actually given the inheritance of eternal life, and as a result of the faith that the Spirit’s work produces, they receive the inheritance they were appointed to have. Even at that point they still don’t have the full consummate possession of their inheritance. That remains to be fulfilled at their glorification on the last day, but the Spirit remains at work in their heart as a seal and guarantee of the full consummate possession of their inheritance in the future.
I think you’re misunderstanding the Calvinist position on regeneration. The Spirits work in a person’s heart that brings them out of their spiritually dead state or out of the state of spiritual slavery to sin(metaphors for their moral inability to be willing to give themselves totally in service to God) isn’t the same as being given the inheritance of eternal life. I know you don’t believe in people’s moral inability or that the Spirit’s work in a person’s heart is effectual, but we don’t believe a person is saved or given eternal life before faith. I hope that helps.
Matt:
He [Brian] seems to take “believed” as going forward to profess belief to Paul and Barnabas as in some type of altar call, not the actual cognitive and heartfelt act of trusting in Christ.
.
br.d
Matt – consider the possibility that your perception on that point – falls into the category of projection.
.
I don’t know of any sincere Christians who would affirm an “artificial” or “superficial” form of “belief”
Every Christian I know would say his “belief” is “heartfelt” and certainly “cognitive”
.
I suspect the reason Aidan is asking you this question – is because he may suspect your thinking has been overtly influenced by stealth Calvinism.
.
In Calvinism – an impulse cannot come to pass within a human brain unless Calvin’s god decrees it.
Every impulse comes to pass infallibly
And since it is impossible for that which is fallible to RESIST that which is infallible – it follows – every impulse comes to pass within every human brain IRRESISTIBLY.
.
Of course the vast majority of impulses which IRRESISTIBLY come to pass within human brains are sinful evil impulses.
.
Consequently – a very common claim by Calvinists is that any “belief” outside of an impulse infallibly decreed to come to pass within a human brain – would constitute a “non-heartfelt” and “non-cognitive” belief.
.
I suspect that may be the reason why Aidan is asking you the question he is asking.
1. I wasn’t accusing Brian of claiming that their belief wasn’t genuine. He was saying that ἐπίστευσαν was referring to a public profession to Paul and Barnabas, which would have come after the belief in their hearts. My point was that the text says nothing about them arranging themselves to come forward in some sort of altar call and that, even in that speculative scenario, the actual belief would have preceded their arrangement to come forward to profess their belief (going against the pluperfect periphrastic construction in the text).
2. I’ve been convinced of Calvinist soteriology for over a quarter of a century now. I wouldn’t exactly describe myself as being influenced by “stealth Calvinism”.
3. You’re speaking of God’s decree as though it was exerting some direct and immediate causal force instead of playing out according to the natural course of secondary causes. God is the primary cause of all things that come to pass in His creation in the same way He’s the first cause/unmoved mover in the Cosmological Argument for God’s existence. Every effect can be causally traced back, through a chain of secondary causes, to God’s actions, but God never directly implants sinful desires or impulses in anyone’s mind.
br.d
Hi Matt – I was responding to your exact quote.
The inferences within your statement were pretty clear
-quote
some type of altar call, not the *actual cognitive and heartfelt* act of trusting in Christ.
.
Again – the presupposition behind that concept would be totally consistent with Calvinist influences.
And for the reasons I spelled out.
Yes. He was claiming that the word ἐπίστευσαν (believed) was referring to the profession of their belief, not the actual belief itself. I don’t think he was implying in any way that their belief wasn’t genuine though. I hope that clarifies what I meant.
br.d
AH! Thank you for making that correction.
:-]
Matt,
Have you ever read Romans 15:21?
That’s for gentiles.
For the Jews, it’s Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8.
No regeneration needed for a gentile. Just for the law of Moses folks.
That’s my argument against effectual.
The Jews can’t believe until…
The gentiles… different story. Romans 15:21.
Ed Chapman
Why wouldn’t the same be true of Gentiles? (Eph.4:17-18)
Hello Charles and welcome
Matt,
You had said:
“Why wouldn’t the same be true of Gentiles? (Eph.4:17-18)”
My response:
Did you miss Romans 15:21? God didn’t blind the Gentiles. So you are going to have to come to a different conclusion as to why there are atheists in the world from your Eph reference.
God Blinds Jews:
2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
Satan Blinds Gentiles:
2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Ed Chapman
Hi Matt,
Brian doesn’t really like to debate his positions on things. That doesn’t make sense, an altar call scenario would imply a pre-existent faith, are you sure you understood him correctly? On that basis it would be very difficult to deny that belief preceded their “arrangement” to go forward and profess their belief.
I understand that “appointment or arrangement to eternal life believed” to be in contrast to those who “judged themselves unworthy” of eternal life by their opposition to the truth. Those who did not reject the truth believed. These were the ones appointed or arranged to eternal life, those not rejecting the word of God. These were the ones who judged themselves worthy of eternal life.
Regeneration in the Bible in reference to salvation is defined as “new-birth.” This regeneration or new-birth never precedes faith. In fact, not even the moment of belief is the moment of regeneration. Regeneration or the new-birth occurs at the moment one is raised up in baptism to walk in “newness of life.” knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin” (Rom. 6:4,6). That is when the old self dies and sin is taken out of the way and the new-birth or new-life begins. Paul calls baptism the “washing/laver or bath of regeneration” in Titus 3:5. And the Holy Spirit works through the word to convict, not outside it (Eph. 6:17; Heb 4:12).
The Calvinist position on regeneration is not the Biblical position. This is partly due to the fact that the Calvinists misunderstand the Bible’s definition of what it means to be spiritually dead. It doesn’t mean moral inability. It simply is the result of being separated from God. Being separated from God through sin means being separated from life. And that life resides in the Son of God.
1 Jn 5:12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
Regards
Aidan
I explained in a previous comment that appointment to something doesn’t require that a person possess it already.
My argument that τεταγμένοι is passive, not middle, was based on the fact that the type of middle meaning Brian was claiming had fallen out of usage in the Koine period of the NT, that the common way Luke and the other NT authors conveyed the meaning of reflexive action (where someone does something to themself) was with an active verb followed by a reflexive pronoun (as Luke did 2 verses earlier), that any construction without a reflexive pronoun would have been an anomaly, that the scholarly lexical sources list τεταγμένοι in Ac.13:48 as passive, and that only God can appoint someone to eternal life before they even believe.
Again Matt, thank you for your thoughtful reply. We now have your view in contrast to mine, and others can decide which fits best the context and grammar as we presented it. I’ll just mention this final thought.
Keep in mind that Luke is reporting what happened. He is a historian reporting his observations. I don’t see him making unseen theological comments in the middle of a list of actions accomplished by the Gentiles there. He is reporting what he saw, and when Paul and Barnabas pointed, or perhaps appointed, the Gentiles to believe and be baptized, I do indeed see them getting in line to profess their faith.
I wish for you the best!
Well said Brian,
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] I like v.37 even though its slightly controversial being included.
This too:😉
15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”
Jeremiah 6:16 NKJV Thus says the LORD:
“Stand in the ways and see,
And ask for the old paths, where the good way is,
And walk in it;
Then you will find rest for your souls.
But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
Brian, yes the contrast is clear. I just want to point out that when you said, “I don’t see him making unseen theological comments in the middle of a list of actions accomplished by the Gentiles there”, that Luke makes another passing theological comment in the very same verse. He makes a huge theological claim about Paul’s apostolic authority, when he claims it’s “the word of the Lord”. The argument that Luke wouldn’t make that type of theological claim just doesn’t hold water.
Also, I guess you’re admitting that τεταγμένοι is passive now if you’re claiming that Paul and Barnabas are the implied subjects who appointed for the Gentiles to line up and profess belief. That’s a huge shift in your argument away from arguing that τεταγμένοι is in the middle voice. However, it’s pure speculation, not based on anything in the text. It’s also not the same as being appointed to eternal life, which is what the text actually says. There’s only One who can appoint people to eternal life (even before they believe), and it isn’t Paul.
I won’t rehash the other points I made that went unanswered, but I agree that the contrast between our positions is very clear. For the record, I think you’re an intelligent guy Brian. You can do much better than this. There has to be a pre-existing commitment that’s preventing you from just going with what the text says.
Matt,
You had said:
“There’s only One who can appoint people to eternal life (even before they believe), and it isn’t Paul.”
The word in Acts 13:48 is “ORDAINED”, but one of the uses of the Greek word for “ORDAINED” is appoint, yes, but also ADDICT.
1 Corinthians 16:15
I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
NOTE: The “ORDAINED THEMSELVES”. They APPOINTED themselves. They ADDICTED themselves.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman
You said,
“The word in Acts 13:48 is “ORDAINED”, but one of the uses of the Greek word for “ORDAINED” is appoint, yes, but also ADDICT.
1 Corinthians 16:15
I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
NOTE: The “ORDAINED THEMSELVES”. They APPOINTED themselves. They ADDICTED themselves.”
I think this is well understood that every single written, recorded language has words with more than one meaning.
AND
That more than one word may be used for one thing, as well.
This does not cross into translation, though, as some languages have words that are hard to define or use, as there may be no exact counterpart in the receiving language.
To choose the infinitive ‘to addict’, is fully folly in today’s English. Since we are using today’s English, we need to leave antiquated and abandoned terminology, as what the term once communicated, it no longer does. I think it is a shame, btw, that languages due evolve (Devolve?) due to illiteracy and laziness.
Is not the reason we translate from a foreign tongue into our native tongue so that we can have knowledge and understanding?
I admit that I had to investigate the etymology of the verb, addict.
addict (v.)
1530s (implied in addicted) “to devote or give up (oneself) to a habit or occupation,” from Latin addictus, past participle of addicere “to deliver, award, yield; make over, sell,” properly “give one’s assent to,” but figuratively “to devote, consecrate; sacrifice, sell out, betray, abandon.” This is from ad “to”, which was usually “to say, declare” “to show,” also “pronounce solemnly”, but also could be “adjudge, allot.”
I have never seen ‘addict’ used in any such way in my entire life and using it in the Bible translation today (as opposed to 1500-1700s) would only cause confusion, as today it means something completely adverse and bad.
Art Haglund
Art Haglund
Art,
You had said:
“I think this is well understood that every single written, recorded language has words with more than one meaning.
AND
That more than one word may be used for one thing, as well.”
My response:
That’s my whole point…ORDAIN, obviously, has more than one GREEK WORD representing the English word.
So can we stick to the DEFINITION of the Greek word used, rather than what ORDAIN means in English? Why do I ask? Because the English word ORDAIN is a STUPID word chosen by those who translated the Bible from Greek to English.
Let’s make the children SUFFER!
Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children…
Is that the word that you would have used? SUFFER?
I would not have chosen ORDAIN, either. First of all, I’m not of the Calvin or the other team, or Catholic. I don’t buy into Total Depravity in which God has to INTERVENE to MAKE someone believe, so I take the side of ordaining themselves, meaning that they were SEEKING it already, ADDICTING themselves to it, and Paul just so happened to preach it in their presence, and THAT was enough for them to believe in Paul’s words on a subject that they ADDICTED themselves to.
That makes logical sense, with no formal education in grammar. We used to call that common sense. But I think you guys call it “natural man” sense, or something like that.
Basically, I read the story and come to a conclusion. It’s like the puzzle of seeing real numbers mixed in with misspelled words, but you still know what it states. You don’t need an education for that, just plain common sense.
Ed Chapman
Ed
I don’t buy into Total Depravity in which God has to INTERVENE to MAKE someone believe….
.
br.d
Just a side note
Any time a Calvinist appeals to any kind if divine intervention – he is back-pedaling his own doctrine.
.
In Calvinism:
1) No event is granted existence – unless that event is decreed
2) Any event that is decreed – is decreed to come to pass with infallible exactness which is infallibly unalterable.
3) To intervene in any event – would require altering that event
4) it is logically impossible to alter an event which is infallibly unalterable.
.
Calvin’s god would be altering that which he made infallibly unalterable.
.
The poor Calvinist finds himself saddled with a doctrine which eradicates things like divine intervention and divine prevention.
.
Divine prevention and divine intervention simply do not exist in Calvinism.
They are eradicated by the doctrine of decrees.
.
Poor unfortunate Calvinists – are left desperately trying to manufacture FACADES of things don’t exist in their doctrine.
I’m not sure what your point is. Yes, words often have a semantic range. The translation “addicted” in the Elizabethan English of the KJV had a different meaning than the common usage today. It conveyed the same meaning as the word “devoted” in modern translations.
The specific usage within the semantic range of the verb can be affected by multiple factors such as grammar, syntax, and context. The finite verb in 1Cor.16:15 is in a different tense/aspect and voice, is followed by a reflexive pronoun (the common way of showing reflexive action), and has a different context than the perfect passive participle preceded by a finite imperfect from of the equative/state-of-being verb εἰμί (forming a pluperfect periphrastic construction) in Ac.13:48. There (in Ac.13:48) all the major scholarly translation committees I’m aware of (ESV, NASB, NKJV, HCSB, CSV, NET, NIV, etc.) translate it as “appointed”. When you have that much agreement, you can be pretty sure that “appointed” is an accurate translation (not that different translations would necessarily imply that it wasn’t). I hope that helps.
Matt,
Let’s not forget that “addicted” was followed by the pronoun “themselves”, and let’s not forget that the Greek word for “addicted” is the same Greek word used in Acts 13:48 for “ordained”.
My point was, that whatever that Greek word is, it doesn’t take GOD to make it happen in either case.
We both read the verse, Acts 13:48, differently, all because of what dogma we believe, NOT BECAUSE of the words meaning.
If I was to write the story, I’d make a logical statement that states:
“The Gentiles believed in life after death, that after you die, there’s GOT TO BE MORE than just THIS LIFE. They believed that so much that they coud TASTE IT.”
“Then they heard Paul’s Words about how to OBTAIN eternal life, and believed”.
Is it really about multiple definitions of one word, or is it that your dogma is different than mine?
Ed Chapman
Thank you again Matt. I wasn’t going to add anything, but I feel I should point you back to point #7 in the OP, where I concede the other possibilities based on viewing τεταγμένοι as passive.
Matt,
1Co 16:15
I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted G5021 themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
In this verse, the English word used is “addicted”, followed by a pronoun of “themselves”.
That same G5021 is used in Acts 13:48 for “ordained”.
No outside source was used to “ordain” themselves to the ministry of the saints. They did it “themselves”.
That’s why this Greek (G5021) is different than G1096, or G3724, or G5500, or G2919, for one English word called “ordained”, all in the Book of Acts. This G5021 stands out as something DIFFERENT.
My conclusion is…the English word, “ordained” was a DUMB word for the translators to come up with for THIS one Greek word (G5021).
Ed Chapman
Matt,
You had said:
“Surely you don’t think the Gentiles appointed themselves to eternal life before they ever believed!?!”
My response:
I’m neither calvinist or arm… however you spell it… but…
Long ago I looked at this myself, regarding that strange English word, “ordained”, and what I found was that these gentiles were seeking and desiring eternal life, not knowing anything as to how to obtain it.
Then here comes Paul, preaching how to get it.
Then they believed Paul.
That’s the order of events that makes sense.
Regarding Greek and grammar, I could care less. That’s not my thing. Greek scholars are a dime a dozen.
But experience tells me to look at that Greek word as to how it’s used in other instances, when seeking the definition of the word.
And that is how I came to my conclusion, years ago, and that pretty much matches up with what Brian is saying from his academic verbiage.
With what you are laying out is like straining at a nat…
Ed Chapman
You say, “Regarding Greek and grammar, I could care less. That’s not my thing”, and then go on to rely on your “experience”, that has nothing to do with Greek, to determine the meaning of a specific form of a Greek participle in a particular passage. No concern for the semantic range of the word. No concern for the use of lexical sources. Grammar, syntax, and context are all unimportant to you. It doesn’t matter if every Greek lexicon and every major scholarly translation committee recognizes that the participle is passive (meaning they didn’t appoint themselves to eternal life) and the pluperfect periphrastic construction requires them to have been appointed to eternal life before believing, you think all those “Greek scholars are a dime a dozen”.
Since that’s the case, I don’t really see anyway to convince you otherwise. You do you, and enjoy believing what you want, instead of what the divinely inspired authors of Scripture actually wrote in that language you could care less about.
Matt,
My “experience” is of speaking English. English is my first language, and I’ve been speaking it for almost 60 years. I was stationed in Japan for 3 and a half years, so I can speak a few words in that language! Other than that…no, I don’t care about Greek. Greek Scholars are a dime a dozen, and we still have a ton of denominations with all those Greek scholars knowing everything about Greek. What did being a Greek scholar accomplish? Something to put on someone’s “I Love Me” wall?
All I’m looking for is a definition, along with pinpointing the use of the Greek Word, then use common sense, which saves money from attending college courses in Greek.
Ed Chapman
“In most cases, the word order and position of the verb within a Greek phrase doesn’t matter.”
Utter nonsense in ALL languages!
Then John said,
Then said John,
John then said,
John said then,
Said then John,
Said John then,
Sure while some are clumsy, order matters not in such a simple sentence.
ειδοτες αδελφοι ηγαπημενοι υπο θεου την εκλογην υμων
Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God
watchful brothers, beloved under God, the election of you
Brothers God you Watchful beloved of under the election
The first two mean different things, the last means nothing.
Yes, even in Greek, word order matters and this is not the exception. It is the most of the time.
No, you cannot intermingle the subject and predicate.
Notice the verb order:
When the gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord. Meanwhile, all who had been destined to eternal life believed,
Όταν το άκουσαν αυτό οι εθνικοί, άρχισαν να χαίρονται και να δοξάζουν τον λόγο του Κυρίου. Εν τω μεταξύ, όλοι όσοι είχαν προοριστεί για την αιώνια ζωή πίστεψαν,
IS that how the Bible reads it, with believing as the last written word?
NOPE
Here it is as the Bible was written
Όταν το άκουσαν αυτό οι εθνικοί, άρχισαν να χαίρονται και να δοξάζουν τον λόγο του Κυρίου. Εν τω μεταξύ, όλοι όσοι πίστευαν είχαν προοριστεί για την αιώνια ζωή,
When the gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord. Meanwhile, all who believed had been destined to eternal life,
It is amazing that it DOES matter the word order, this is in ALL languages, because ALL languages function on logic and uniformity.
Your claim is like saying that letter order does not matter in words, sentence order does not matter in paragraphs, paragraph order does not matter in chapters and chapter order does not matter in books.
The claim IS false in ALL languages!
Hi Art,
How come mine don’t look like yours?
TEXTUS RECEPTUS:
13:48 ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον·
MORPHOLOGICAL:
13:48 ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον
YOURS 1:
Όταν το άκουσαν αυτό οι εθνικοί, άρχισαν να χαίρονται και να δοξάζουν τον λόγο του Κυρίου. Εν τω μεταξύ, όλοι όσοι είχαν προοριστεί για την αιώνια ζωή πίστεψαν,
YOURS 2:
Όταν το άκουσαν αυτό οι εθνικοί, άρχισαν να χαίρονται και να δοξάζουν τον λόγο του Κυρίου. Εν τω μεταξύ, όλοι όσοι πίστευαν είχαν προοριστεί για την αιώνια ζωή,
Is the irony lost on you that you’re attempting to argue about the use of word order in a language you can’t read?
This is very basic stuff that’s taught at the beginning of first year Greek. Case, not word order determines the way a substantive functions in a sentence. Since you claim, “you cannot intermingle subject and predicate in a sentence”, why don’t you try to make sense of an example like Jn.20:30 based on word order instead of parsing the substantives?
πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλα σημεῖα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐνώπιον τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ
Did Jesus do many other signs, or did the signs do Jesus? Based on English word order the predicate of an active verb must come after the verb and the subject must come before it. If you think that’s true in Greek also, then you’d have to believe the signs did Jesus. If you gave a literal word for word translation in the Greek word order without regard for inflection or the flow of proper English, you would be left with this:
“Many indeed therefore also other signs worked the Jesus in the presence of the disciples of Him, which not are have been written in the book this.”
It’s alright to admit you can’t read the Greek. You don’t have to pretend to be an expert in a language you’ve never studied.
“If you gave a literal word for word translation in the Greek word order without regard for inflection or the flow of proper English, you would be left with this:
“Many indeed therefore also other signs worked the Jesus in the presence of the disciples of Him, which not are have been written in the book this.””
My greek study was a lifetime ago, but I am trying to back into it.
As far as the word for word you listed above, it is very easy to bring that into a natural sounding English sentence without any trouble. I would, however ask you to notice that word groups, in the Greek as in the English have a necessary order. Observe:
“Many indeed therefore also other signs worked the Jesus” “Many indeed, for this reason (the definition of therefore) also other automobiles repaired this (another possibile translation, instead of ‘the’) mechanic…” Clumsy, to be sure, but a great distance from being unintelligible.
“in the presence of the disciples of Him” (many, many languages still use the ‘of him’, instead of the possessive personal pronoun, his. this is a very modern-day word group, and it DOES, in the Greek, matter in this phrase.
“have been written in the book this” The word, this, is an adjective. in many langauges today, it is most common for the adjective to follow the noun. In fact, modern English uses it today, “a funny thing, this” or “a dreadful case, this” Again, the word order, absolutely matters, in the greek here. See, you assert something that is not true, that the word oder does not matter. The example you gave shows the opposite/
While I can admit that I do not currently read Greek, perhaps you can admit that you are not the end all and be all of knowledge and you you also make errors?
No, it does not, even in a cursory view, seem to say that the Signs worked Jesus.
I forgive your mocking/derisive/dismissive tone that you have displayed to several others and myself on this page.
I ask for forgiveness from you and others if they think I have acted that way towards you and them, as well.
Nothing you just wrote made any sense in attempting to refute anything I’ve said. You claimed, “you cannot intermingle the subject and predicate”, so I gave you an example of subject and predicate flipped to opposite sides of an active verb in the Greek, in a statement that would be totally ridiculous if you relied on word order to determine their function in the sentence. If you’re point is that word order can be rearranged to form a coherent statement, I wouldn’t disagree, but that statement may not convey the meaning the author intended.
Rearranging word order also goes against your original argument about word order in Ac.13:48. You claimed that the word order determined which action happened first and since ἐπίστευσαν preceded τεταγμένοι in sequential word order, they believed before being appointed to eternal life. That just isn’t true. The pluperfect periphrastic construction ἦσαν τεταγμένοι denotes relative time in relation to the finite verb ἐπίστευσαν. Luke is telling his readers that the appointment to eternal life was already a completed action with ongoing consequences and/or results (the meaning of the perfect tense/aspect) at the time they believed. That isn’t just my opinion, it’s a fact. Brian even agrees with me on that. I would attach pictures from multiple Greek text books explaining it, but I can’t attach pictures on here. I don’t know of any Greek scholars, Calvinist or non-Calvinist, who disagree. So, maybe you can understand how wild it is to see a bunch of people who are totally unfamiliar with the language authoritatively claiming that the Greek clearly means these people were appointed to eternal life AFTER believing.
I may come across as arrogant in my response to that. I’m sorry about that. No one else’s behavior excuses mine, but if you think about it, how arrogant does a person have to be to think they can overturn all of scholarship in a language they can’t even read?
It’s getting really late, so I have to call it a night. Have a good night.
Not only did I show that yoo cannot intermingle the subject and the predicate, but I also showed that your previous statement of word order and placement is not important.
Even in English, the full predicate can be placed before the subject
You need to grasp what intermingle means.
Placing whole sentence sections, as a whole is not intermingling.
ALL of the rest of your words pretend two fallacies are true:
1. Majority = truth
2. The fallacy of authority
I WILL teach you again. Let us see if you choose to learn or not.
1. Verses are not in the Bible, they are a develoed method of finding a specified place.
2. Antecedents exist in ALL languages, thus study and debate on one verse, bastardized from its context does not (nay CANNOT!) bring truth, unless such a statement is originally written as a stand=alone summation or stand-alne point, like the enumerated commandments.
So here we are again, teaching you that sentence sections are the building blocks of all languages, including Greek, and expecially Greek, since their societal driving force was logic.
Here are the sentence sections:
1. Many indeed therefore also other signs
2. worked the Jesus
3. in the presence of the disciples of Him,
4. which not are have been written in the book this
Let us see IF you can learn and drop the pride, please.
We find that these 4 sections can be arranged in practically any order:
1. 3,1,4,2
In the presence of his disciples many other signs which are not written in thei book, Jesus worked. Yep functional, as long as the sections remain in tact.
2. 2,4,1,3
Jesus worked, which are not written in this book, many other signs in front of his disciples. WOW! As long as the sections remain in tact, this works too!
3. 4,3,2,1
which are not written in this book, in the presence of his disciples, Jesus worked many other signs. Rather clumsy I must admit, but still communcates the same information, as long as the sections remain in tact.
Those three are enough to make whole sentences and the meaning does not change.
The reason that the meaning does not change is because in each logical section, the wording remains logically UNCHANGED, due to the linguistic rules of the langauge and time.
Word order section 4:
him of disciples the of presence the in is not how ANY Greek, seeking to write an intelligible sentence, would write it. In Greek, word order does matter.
Please note that in sentence section #1, there is the term, therefore, which means the reason for what is recorded was previously told. This context negates your assertion that one COULD read that the signs ‘worked’ Jesus.
You are breaking all sorts of linguistic rules that every single language on earth must follow.
Wow! You are the epitome of the arrogance I mentioned in my previous reply. You can’t read Greek, yet you claim you will teach me what it means. You can’t read Greek, but the entirety of Greek scholarship is wrong about it because you said so. Nothing in your replies address what I’ve said or even begins to grasp what the issues I’ve brought up are. It’s like we’re engaging in totally different conversations.
You go ahead and believe whatever you want. Have a great day.
Did I claim that I would teach you Greek?
Not at all.
I did teach (but you do not listen) about sentence structure and showed you from what you posted.
YOU posted a direct word for word sentence and claimed that it COULD have been read another way.
I showed you (again, you cannot BE corrected, thus must believe you know it ALL) that the Greek was very much the same as in English and that the sections of the sentence are complete blocks and how they can be moved around./
Instead of dealing with the points I made, you just cry, “Arrogant and Ignorant” and run away.
Since I am ignorant, as you think, then you should have used your energy to address my assertions (which ARE correct, btw.)
You have made several huge errors:
1. Verb and word order do not mean anything. I have show you to be in error, and you have not refuted my corrections to you.
2. You claimed that the Verse you cited COULD be read that the signs ‘worked’ Jesus. I corrected your error.
3. You do not know “the entirety of Greek scholarship” nor do you represent it nor were you asked to represent it. But I DO understand your point. Like I said, MY study in Gree (and Latin) was a lifetime ago (@40 yrs)
4. The ability to READ Greek does not equate to correct understanding, or infallibility. You read AND write English. I would bet everything I have and will have, that you make mistakes in English, as you surely do in Greek.
5. ALL languages have logic and uniformity in common. That is not to say their rules are identical to other languages, but they all have rules. I mentioned that French has 27 conjugations for verbs. I have forgotten all but a few. Still, I did study them and if I went back, I could reacquaint myself and find the rules. They folow logic and uniformity
You have resorted to the Ad Hominem rather than dealing with what I have shown you. That is sad, as you have shown misunderstanding in linguistics by not even identiying the sections of a sentence in either English or Greek. I suggest that you leave vern tenses alone until you can properly diagram a sentence.
br.d
Matt and Art –
We need to ask you both to please refrain from critical/personal language towards each other.
.
Disagreements are a reality.
But lets please disagree in a civil manner.
.
Sincere thanks
br.d
Will do, sir.
Thank you for the reminder. Sometimes I wander too close to the edge without realizing it, I will srtive to do better.
Maybe it’s better for me to take a break from this article. I sincerely wish everyone a good evening.
br.d
I hope you will continue Matt
You ( as well as Art) have things to offer.
.
SOT101 is a place for people to deliberate with one another over the topic of Calvinism.
.
We never know what the Lord will do with conversations we have with one another.
The Lord does bless us
And he blesses us through our interactions with one another
.
Sincere thanks
br.d
Hi Matt,
I second what br.d said to you.
I personally found you to be cordial with me, and I hope you found me to be the same. I’m not a Calvinist or a Provisionist, but I know that anytime a Calvinist gets on here to defend their position they tend to get it from all sides in terms of having to defend their position from multiple attacks at the one time. I think that would wear anybody down.
Perhaps next time it might be good to remember that you are not obligated to answer every comment or question that is thrown at you.
Anyways, I enjoyed our conversation, and just wanted to let you know that.
Regards,
Aidan
Art,
This, I very much agree with you on, regarding sentence structure. My very little education in Japanese taught me that as well. Japanese sentence structure is not English sentence structure at all.
He’s switching his position. Earlier he was claiming that the word order, especially the order of the verbs, showed that believing came before the “ordering” and thus caused the ordering to eternal life. Here’s a couple of statements he made:
“Greek like almost all languages, reads, for understanding, their word order (adjectives notwithstanding) So having appointment as the last verb, yet not last word, practically disqualifies the thought that appointment is to be understood as prior to faith, believing.”
“Even with the simple word order reading, and definitely verb order, puts the ordering as the very last thing considered and is the result of what comes prior.”
Now, after I explained how inflection, not word order, determines how words function in Greek sentences and gave him a clear example of how following word order would turn a verse entirely on its head, he’s giving me examples of how he can rearrange the word order to make it form a coherent statement. He doesn’t seem to realize that what he’s saying now goes against what he was arguing about Ac.13:48 in the first place.
Nope. I am not changing my position. I AM pointing out additional errors you hold.
I did not switch word order, but whole sections, keeping the eword order the same
As I rightly stted, you cannot intermingle the subject and predicate.
You seem to think that the position is what makes it either. The subject is what is being or doing. The rest is made of the preidicate, object. there can be more than one and these whole sections can be moved around. See, that is me, NOT changing my position.
If, as you ORIGINALLY stated that in the Greek, MOST OFTEN (your choice of wording) word order does not matter in the Freek.
Immediately, I disproved you by stating the truth that you cannot just take all the words and list them in alphabetial order and end p with a cognet sentence.
That is proof number one.
If you have a red car and a blue bus, in the Greek, you need to place those adjectives in a certain spot to relate it to the corresponding noun.
That is proof two.
Verb order does matter., as well as voice, tense and conjugation.
ALL languages have rules of logic and continuity. otherwise, communication could not happen.
🤣😂🤣 You just proved my point again 🤣😂🤣
Thank you for this email, I’m simply amazed how reformed theology adherents can misapply what the scripture is really saying. This email just simply lays things out so clear and easy-to-understand.
All excellent points. Thank you for taking the time to reply in detail.