The goal of bible study is to arrive at our most accurate understanding of a verse or passage, rather than simply accepting the views of others which differ and thus one or more are wrong. Consider Acts 13:48.
I want to suggest that we shouldn't be aiming to arrive at "
our most accurate understanding of a verse or passage," but at "
the most accurate understanding" of them. For me, the difference is that "our" sounds very subjective -
what I think, basically - the final arbiter of my accuracy of understanding being
my own thinking and preference (however bad it might be); but "the" indicates conformity to objective (that is, existing independent of me), generally accepted principles and rules of interpretation, reasoning and logic. We ought all of us to be gauging our interpretation of God's word on this second, objective basis rather than on the basis of our own peculiar, subjective, interpretive preference. Without an objective standard of reasoning and an objective method of interpretation to which we all subscribe, our interpretations amount to nothing more than opinion.
Acts 13:44-48
44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.
45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming.
46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
47 "For so the Lord has commanded us, 'I have placed you as a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the end of the earth.'"
48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
One of the most important rules of Bible interpretation is: "Context is king." If you want to be as sure as possible to properly understand a verse or passage, you
must understand them first of all within their immediate context. Someone has stated this rule this way: "Never read a Bible verse," by which they mean "a verse removed from its context becomes a pretext for a proof-text." In other words, interpreting a verse apart from its immediate context is certain to produce error in interpretation.
The fly in the buttermilk is the vague phrase "...all who had been appointed to eternal life believed."
The widely held bogus view is that this refers to "predestination" with God unilaterally choosing and thus appointing some to eternal life before creation. But none of that can be explicitly found in the text.
Does Luke write that Paul and Barnabas declared to the jealous Jews that God had appointed them to their jealousy, making them incapable of any other reaction to what Paul and Barnabas had preached? No. Paul and Barnabas placed the responsibility for the reaction of the Jews squarely upon the Jews (
vs. 46), not God. So, then, when I read "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed," I don't automatically think in the Calvinist way that meticulous divine ordination is meant. Instead, I understand that all who, by humbling themselves and choosing to trust in Christ are in him, are "appointed" to the salvation and eternal life that he is.
Who does the appointing? Does the verse say it is God? Nope
How is the appointing accomplished. Someone provides the direction (i.e. you must trust fully in Christ) and then those receiving (passively) the direction act (actively) to take and accept that direction. Thus they chose to believe.
So the first issue for study is the verb "appointed."
Is the verb "appointed" a translation of horizō (G3724) which means "set or determine?" Nope
Is the verb "appointed" a translation of proorizō (G4309) which means "predetermine?" Nope
Is the verb "appointed" a translation of prographo (G4270) which means to set forth beforehand?" Nope
Is the verb "appointed" a translation of kataskeuazō (G2680) which means "to make ready?" Nope
Is the verb "appointed" a translation of tithēmi (G5087) which means "to unilaterally appoint?" Nope
The verb is "tasso" which refers to an arrangement by mutual agreement. Thus the authentic interpretation of Acts 13:48 is Paul gave direction to eternal life (He presented the gospel) and some of the Gentiles took his direction and believed.
My lexicons render
tasso as "arranged in an orderly manner" not "an arrangement by mutual agreement."
Acts 13:50-51
50 But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.
51 But they shook off the dust of their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium.
Why should Paul and Barnabas protest, shaking off the dust of their feet against the antagonistic actions of the jealous Jews, if they believed God had ordained that antagonism? Would they not, then, be protesting the will of God? It seems so to me... Luke didn't write that God had ordained all that is described in the above two verses, either. And so, a natural, straightforward reading of the event recounted by Luke in
verses 44-51, uncolored by Calvinist thinking, doesn't appear to me to produce a predestinatory meaning in
verse 48 at all.
