Acts 13:48 Stabbed in the Heart Again

Paul P.S.M.S. Owen has continued his effort to remove Acts 13:48 from the memorization passages of his “fellow Calvinists.”

A Helpful Quote

After putting down my thoughts on Acts 13:48 yesterday, I ran across the following comments in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, by R. J. Knowling, at that time Professor of New Testament Exegesis at King’s College, London. He notes that, “there is no countenance here for the absolutum decretum of the Calvinists, since ver. 46 had already shown that the Jews had acted through their own choice. The words are really nothing more than a corollary of St. Paul’s anagkaion: the Jews as a nation had been ordained to eternal life–they had rejected this election–but those who believed amongst the Gentiles were equally ordained by God to eternal life, and it was in accordance with His divine appointment that the Apostles had turned to them.”

The fact that Mr. Owen continues to refer to us as his “fellow Calvinists” while at the same time forcing unjustified synergistic assumptions into the text is a joke; or perhaps it is much worse. Please, Paul: if you are going to make an effort at mishandling and mangling the Word of God, don’t bring us down with you! If you are going to melt down into this eisegetical nonsense, don’t associate us with you!

But let’s review this “helpful quote” that is supposed to convince us to toss Acts 13:48 out the window with the other Reformed prooftexts that bit the dust thanks to Paul P.S.M.S Owen. This quote contains three things:

1. An assertion that “there is no countenance here for the absolutum decretum of the Calvinists.”
2. The reason is that “ver. 46 had already shown that the Jews had acted through their own choice.”
3. The alternate interpretation that “The words are really nothing more than a corollary of St. Paul’s anagkaion: the Jews as a nation had been ordained to eternal life–they had rejected this election–but those who believed amongst the Gentiles were equally ordained by God to eternal life, and it was in accordance with His divine appointment that the Apostles had turned to them.”

How is this quote at all “helpful”? I don’t even see an argument here. I just see three assertions, all jammed into the same paragraph. Point number two argues as if the fact that the Jews chose to reject Christ, their choice voids or even determines God’s appointment in verse 48. Not only is this a connection that is not made by the passage, but this is based upon either a misunderstanding of Calvinism (as if Calvinism does not believe in choice) or a presupposition that human responsibility presupposes human freedom (something hardly Calvinistic, we must have Paul P.S.M.S Owen note), an assumption that is not supported here. But then it gets worse. The interpretation posited argues as if this passage is conveying that God appointed these Jews to eternal life, but since they rejected it, only the Gentiles which responded to the gospel have been appointed to eternal life. In other words, we have two groups, “equally ordained” to eternal life. One group believes. The other group doesn’t.

Is this supposed to help the notion that v. 48 is “really nothing more than a corollary” of v. 46? V. 48 states, “…And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Who believed? Those appointed. Why did they believe? Because they were appointed. Are we supposed to believe that there are some who did not believe, yet they were appointed to believe? That would be ridiculous. It is not the people who were “well-disposed” to the gospel who believed, but those who were appointed. Or perhaps this “helpful quote” is attempting to argue that those who believed were appointed because they believed. But this is absolutely backwards of the presentation of the text.

Again, as I think I made clear, I do not deny that this passage is consistent with Calvinistic theology. I personally believe that those who came to faith on this occasion were in fact unconditionally predestinated to that end. But Luke’s point here is not to make a distinction between election and reprobation, but rather to show that the providential salvation of those Gentiles who embraced the truth of the gospel on this occasion was in keeping with the divine plan to extend God’s grace beyond the Jewish nation, as predicted by Isaiah. These Gentiles who believed were accepted because God had announced long ago his intention to extend his grace to the nations. That is the natural meaning of the text at an exegetical level. Questions regarding the relationship of the divine decrees to God’s foreknowledge, free will, and the outcome of human choices are simply not in view here. These are theological agendas which are imposed upon the text, most egregiously I’m afraid by my fellow Calvinists, who all the while like to claim that they are simply allowing the Bible to speak for itself!

I can agree that part of Luke’s point is to “show that the providential salvation of those Gentiles who embraced the truth of the gospel on this occasion was in keeping with the divine plan to extend God’s grace beyond the Jewish nation.” But that fact doesn’t throw the Reformed exegesis out of the window. Rather, it strengthens it. Owen has stated that he believes that this passage “can fit most any orthodox soteriology (Calvinist, Arminian, or Roman Catholic).” This is, of course, nonsense. We have a specific group of people who believed because they were appointed to eternal life. Two people may have heard the same message. One believes and the other one doesn’t. What is the difference between them? Is it their natures? Or perhaps it is because, as this text states, one was appointed to eternal life and the other not. How did it come to be that the Gentiles were included in the divine plan? You see, we can force into the text ambiguous concepts such as corporate election that do not belong in the text, but we are still left with inevitable conclusions. Gentiles were saved because Gentiles (which encompasses specific people) were appointed. We must play hop-scotch with the text in order to avoid what is clearly presented.

Paul P.S.M.S Owen has an obvious “theological agenda” that he is willfully imposing on the text. Why anyone would want to embrace such an agenda and mishandle the text, I do not know. But watch carefully in the citations that follow. You are about to witness a shift in Owen’s arguments. He’s about to migrate from a regurgitation of the “helpful quote” to adding his own two cents, and this is his biggest mistake. The shift in argumentation below betrays Owen’s motives. He isn’t concerned about “the natural meaning of the text at an exegetical level.” Rather, he is the one with the theological agenda, and it is evident in his statements below:

Another Problem for My Fellow Calvinists

There is one other problem which must be faced by those who would insist that Acts 13:48 supports only a Calvinistic soteriology. It is not even clear that God is the subject of tasso ( “to appoint”). This verb appears four other times in Luke-Acts: Luke 7:8; Acts 15:2; 22:10; and 28:23. God is the (implied) subject of tasso only in Acts 22:10. In the other references, human subjects do the “appointing.” And even in Acts 22:10, it is by no means clear that an eternal divine decree is in view. It simply speaks of the task which has been designated by God for Paul to do (namely, carry the gospel to the Gentiles). One could just as well argue, that in terms of the plot of Acts, Paul was designated to carry out this task from the time that Christ confronted him on the road to Damascus. There need be no reference to an eternal, fixed decree of God at all.

Alright, just a few paragraphs ago the terminology was the divine plan of God for the Gentiles, and that “those who believed amongst the Gentiles were equally ordained by God to eternal life.” We were told “That is the natural meaning of the text at an exegetical level.” But here, that argument is quickly abandoned in order to pursue one that is more convincing. Is this a matter of exegesis, or a theological agenda that is imposed on the text?

This one verse in the book of Acts does not tell us everything concerning the nature of unconditional election. We have the Bible as a whole to do that. However, it puts in clear terms the same concept that is continually preached in the Word of God. Owen states, “This verb appears four other times in Luke-Acts: Luke 7:8; Acts 15:2; 22:10; and 28:23. God is the (implied) subject of tasso only in Acts 22:10.” Let’s look at these passages:

Luk 7:8 For I also am a man having been set under authority, having soldiers under myself. And I say to this one, Go! And he goes. And to another, Come! And he comes. And to my slave, Do this! And he does it.

Act 15:2 Then dissension and not a little disputation with them having taken place by Paul and Barnabas, they appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up into Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this question.

Act 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said to me, Rising up, go into Damascus, and there you will be told about all things which are appointed to you to do.

Act 28:23 And having appointed him a day, more came to him in the lodging, to whom he expounded, earnestly testifying the kingdom of God and persuading them the things concerning Jesus, both from the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning until evening.

Paul P.S.M.S Owen’s citation of these verses is either extremely hilarious, or borderline deception. Owen’s point is that this verb (tasso), in all of these other contexts, is not accompanied with God as the subject, and therefore, there is no reason to believe that God is the subject in Acts 13:48. But this is ridiculous argumentation. In none of these contexts do we see anyone appointed for eternal life. Sure, Paul and Barnabas can be appointed to go to Jerusalem without God being the subject. But does this have anything to do with those who are appointed for eternal life? Does Owen honestly believe that the context between Paul and Barnabas being appointed by the church to go to Jerusalem and the context of believers coming to faith because they were appointed for eternal life are the same type of context?

Likewise, who does the action of tasso in Acts 13:48? Is this speaking of their being appointed by God unto eternal life? As we already noted, if this is the case, the text still leaves unanswered the time-frame and conditions (or lack thereof) for this appointment. But another possibility presents itself. It may well be the intention of Luke to say that these Gentiles were appointed to eternal life by the apostles themselves, who had stated in verse 46 their intention to now offer the grace of God to them rather than the unbelieving Jews. By turning their attention to the Gentiles, the apostles were now designating them as the intended recipients of the gospel. So in other words, “such as were appointed by the apostles’ previous announcement unto eternal life (in other words, the Gentiles in that city) believed.” If the text is read in this manner, then this verse has nothing at all to say to the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism.

The fact that “the text still leaves unanswered the time-frame and conditions (or lack thereof) for this appointment” has no warrant on that fact that all who believed were appointed for eternal life. Luke has the assumption that you are familiar with this concept and doesn’t spend the time here exploring the doctrine. He does, however, clearly and emphatically give us the reason and causation behind the salvation of those who believed: they were appointed for eternal life.

“But another possibility presents itself.” Yeah, the first two failed. Let’s try another one. Is this an exegetical agenda or a theological agenda? Why doesn’t Owen simply join Dave Hunt and the Berean call on this passage?

Does Owen honestly believe that there is more exegetical basis for the notion that the text means “such as were appointed by the apostles’ previous announcement unto eternal life (in other words, the Gentiles in that city) believed” over and against the notion that God had appointed some to eternal life, and because they were appointed, they believed? Which is more exegetically clear? Which imposes a theological agenda upon the text?

“If the text is read in this manner, then this verse has nothing at all to say to the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism.”

Yes, if the text is read in this manner, then all of our theological disagreements crumble and we can all have one big hug. But as soon as Paul P.S.M.S Owen realizes that this argument is nonsense, then we will have to read the text in that manner. And then that manner. And so, Acts 13:48 is once again stabbed in the heart under the noble name of “exegesis.”

Evan May.