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 13:48).What an interesting text. It's interesting to me because it's out of the blue. In the midst of the Jews reviling Paul and Paul pulling out the Gospel from them, the Gentiles rejoice and glorify the word of the Lord. From the conflict comes glory. It's interesting because many believed at this point -- in the midst of the conflict. But it's also interesting because of the particular text of that last phrase.
First, many believed. Good. But not all. And not a few. Many. This number was, in fact, determined: "As many as were appointed to eternal life". Those who were not appointed to eternal life did not believe.
Second, that phrase "appointed to eternal life". It appears in this text that those who believed did so because they were appointed. The Greek word is τάσσω -- tassō. They were arranged or assigned or ordained to eternal life. Now, we kind of all agree on that, except this appears to indicate that "ordained to eternal life" occurs before "believed". "Appointed to eternal life" seems to be the cause of "believed".
Third is the interconnection of these two phrases -- "many" and "appointed to eternal life". The text says that "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." Not one more. Not one less. No one wanted in but couldn't get in because they didn't believe. No one who was appointed to eternal life prior to this failed to believe. Just "as many" and not one more or one less.
We see in this simple, unassuming account that a specific number believed and did so on the basis of being appointed in advance to eternal life. Isn't that interesting?
9 comments:
So, I'm trying to find a way someone could write this off. I looked up several translations, and midst of them said ordained, some said appointed, one said prepared, and one said predestined. But they were all pretty clear on the order, ordained then believed. Only one was kind of confusing, Young's Literal Translation said, "...and did believe-as many as were appointed to life age-during." That is a new term for me. Instead of eternal or everlasting, it is life age-during. That doesn't even make sense to me. It does seem predisposed to the corporate election idea because it also says "nations" instead of "Gentiles". It's sad how someone's theology affects their translation rather than translation affecting theology.
It seems blatantly unavoidable to me. And I cannot figure out even what "life age-during" might mean, but it doesn't get around the appointment, does it?
I've seen some astounding examples of "I see it this way, so how can I get Scripture to read that way too?" lately.
I suppose the question then becomes: how far in advance were they appointed? The answer to this isn't in the text.
Well, first, it was before they believed. Second, other texts indicate well in advance. Jacob was chosen before birth (Rom 9:10-13). God "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). So I'd say, from other texts, "before the foundation of the world."
Something I think that keeps getting forgotten in the foreknowledge argument is that in order for God to not know all is for Him to be stuck in time. It is an anthropomorphisation of God to make Him travel through time with us. God is outside of time, so He sees the past, present, and future all at once. He can know the future because He's in the future. He can know everything everywhere right now because He's right now. He knows everything perfectly in the past because He's in the past. There's no question for Him about how the future turns out because He's there.
David, The idea that God is outside of time comes from Plato. I would argue you find a God that travels though time with us in the Bible. You may disagree, but I would like some scripture to validate your claim.
I don't develop my theology based on non-Christians. The Bible plainly teaches that God knows specific things in advance. If He merely had the ability to know all of what could be, but not what would be, then He could not accurately predict much of anything, unless it was something He was going to do. If God were stuck in time with us, then He'd not be able to be 100% accurate because He doesn't know what the future holds. The fact that Plato agrees with the Bible is irrelevant. Many philosophers do, often unknowingly. To see Scriptures, reference any passage Stan has presented in his blog in regards to foreknowledge, predestination, ordaining, etc. Oh, and look at any passage, especially the Old Testament, that predicts specific things to happen, that happen exactly as predicted. Your "corporate" dodge doesn't work when it comes to prophecy.
The idea of Plato agreeing with the Bible is odd given the timelines and all. (Unless Plato is also outside of time) The idea that Plato's theories on God shaped much of western Christianity seems much more plausible. Whether you (or Stan) want to admit it, Platonic ideas of God have influenced western culture and in turn theology and orthodoxy. You may think you are reading the Bible "plainly", but we all have preconceived notions that we bring to the text. We all like to emphasize texts that match our theology. Why do you think Stan spends an inordinate amount of time discussing texts that contain the words: predestine, elect, chosen, ordain, foreknow...etc? On the same token, I spend much of my time (probably also an inordinate amount) talking about Biblical texts that seem to confirm actual choices, God responding to his people in time, God feeling deep emotions when His creation falls away, God changing his mind...etc. Just something to think about.
I think you misunderstood, Josh. David wasn't saying Plato agreed with Scripture. (Perhaps he should have most accurately said, "The fact that what Plato may have suggested agrees with Scripture ...") David was saying that he got his notions from Scripture, not Plato. But, I don't suppose you'll admit you got your notion of "Free Will" from modern philosophers rather than any biblical text, right?
As for me, I don't spend so much time on Scripture that agrees with my theology because it agrees. Indeed, I haven't always agreed with that theology. It was, as it turns out, the weight of all that Scripture that forced me to change my mind. The reason I spend so much time writing about it, however, is because historical, traditional, orthodoxy is being forgotten by modern Christianity. Nay, not just forgotten; denied. You fight the fires where the fires occur.
Post a Comment