I am a layman of Greek and seek verification of my understanding of the Biblical Greek. I do not know whether my suggestion violates the Greek grammar or not.
In the latter part of the verse : “as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed”,
can we say that all who were ordained to eternal life does not necessarily cause their belief? Being ordained to eternal life is one thing. And belief is another thing. For example if the relative clause “as many as were granted a seat” is linked to a verb “speak”, then the sentence becomes " as many as were granted a seat speak". The sentence discloses the information that the people who speak are the people who were granted a seat. But it does not necessarily mean that being granted a seat causes the people to speak. In the same way for the former part of the verse, gladness does not necessarily cause glorifying or vice versa. Can we say that gladness(ἔχαιρον), glorifying(ἐδόξαζον ), being ordained to eternal life (ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον)and belief (ἐπίστευσαν )were 4 descriptions to be juxtaposed in a lengthy sentence without necessarily a causal relationship among them?
You’re right. As far as I can tell, the grammar doesn’t require that there be a causal relation – it just states that all who were ordained to eternal life believed.
The three verbs rejocing (ἔχαιρον), praising(ἐδόξαζον) and believed (ἐπίστευσαν) linked by the conjunction and (καὶ) described the three reactions of the gentiles. The aorist verb (ἐπίστευσαν) expresses a culminating event, whereas the preceding imperfect verbs (ἔχαιρον, ἐδόξαζον ) depict an action that is still in process.
Can we say that the relative clause “ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον·” actually relates to all the above three reactions of the gentiles (τὰ ἔθνη ) after hearing a message?
And does the verse of Acts 13:48 actually express the idea that after hearing a message, the gentiles who were ordained to eternal life were rejoicing, were praising the word of the Lord and committed in faith?
Well, grammatically τὰ ἔθνη is the subject of ἔχαιρον and ἐδόξαζον, while the subject of ἐπίστευσαν is the relative clause ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. I read it as two phrases, the first saying that the gentiles rejoiced and praised the speech, and the second saying those that were ordained believed. If there is a relation between the relative clause and the first two verbs, it’s very different from its relation to ἐπίστευσαν, but I’m not really clear on what you’re asking. I don’t think, though, that the relative clause and τὰ ἔθνη refer to the exact same group of people (I mean that the former is a subset of the latter).
(Also, strictly speaking it’s not after they heard the message – the way the aspects work here suggests to me that the gentiles, as they listened [to the speech], were rejoicing and glorifying it, and those who were ordained believed.)
So, the relative clause “ ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον•” only referred to those who believed and was a subset of the gentiles(τὰ ἔθνη) who listened [to the speech]. Then can the whole clause “ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον•” mean “ Whosoever believed were those who were ordained to eternal life”.?
The English is somewhat ambiguous. It’s impossible for the Greek to mean that those who believed were (then) ordained to eternal life, if that’s what you’re asking. But if X = the people who were ordained to eternal life and Y = the people who believed (from among the gentiles at least), then explicitly the Greek means that everyone in X is also in Y, but the Greek could imply that everyone in Y is also in X. I mean, if you say “all who come early will get an extra slice of pizza”, you usually imply that those who don’t come early won’t get an extra slice. So if you’re asking whether it means that whoever wasn’t ordained didn’t believe, then that’s a possible implication but that would depend on context and such.
Does it mean that “ Whosoever were ordained to eternal life were those who believed” is an explicit meaning and “ Whosoever believed were those who were ordained to eternal life” is only a possible implied meaning from the text? And the premise is being ordained precedes ones’ believing as far as the tenses and the original position of Greek words “ἐπίστευσαν” and “τεταγμένοι” are concerned.
Whereas I would see the opposite. I take the ὅσοι phrase to be a subgroup of τὰ ἔθνη. There were some who heard the speech, got an emotional rise from it (ἔχαιρον) and said, “Wow! What a speech!” (ἐδόξαζον), while they remained unbelievers (in the message). Only “those who were ordained for eternal life” believed (ἐπίστευσαν). I see the group-subgroup relation as reversed. What makes you see it the other way?
No, we agree. The relative clause refers to a subgroup of τὰ ἔθνη.
–
Again, your English rephrasing is ambiguous to me so I’m not entirely on clear which direction you mean with each phrase. The Greek says everyone who was ordained to eternal life believed – whether everyone who believed had been ordained to eternal life is a possible implication but is not entailed by the Greek. And yes, the tenses make it clear that the being ordained had already taken place when the believing happened. Note that English “were ordained” is ambiguous between a state and an act. The Greek can only mean “who were in a state of having been ordained”.
But if the original Greek words do not entail the meaning that everyone who believed had been ordained to eternal life, then how can the meaning become a possible implication?
Also what is the difference in meaning between a state and an act for the perfect passive participle “having been ordained"?
To take an extreme example if something says “I have three children”, we usually take them to imply that they have exactly three children and no more, but what they say doesn’t quite entail that, since they could have seven children and their statement is still literally true. Or more similar to the Greek, if you say “everyone who comes early gets an extra slice of pizza”, you usually imply that everyone who doesn’t come early won’t get an extra slice, but you don’t actually say that. If everyone who comes get an extra slice no matter what time they come, what you said was still true.
That’s what I’m saying here. What the Greek says explicitly is that everyone who had been ordained to eternal life believed.
Also what is the difference in meaning between a state and an act for the perfect passive participle “having been ordained"?
The English “were ordained” is ambiguous between “had been ordained” and “got ordained”. The Greek in this passage can only mean the former.
So, does it mean that “whoever wasn’t ordained didn’t believe” is a normal implication and “ whosoever believed were those who were ordained” is an extreme implication? Also, what is the difference between “had been ordained” and “got ordained”?
I know this has been inactive for some time but I wanted to chime in, so here’s my two cents worth which is just my opinion.
The 'και’s need to be looked at, as was mentioned earlier. ‘Και’ connects two units at the same level: words, phrases, or clauses. I understand it as two clauses. The ‘και’ before ‘επιστευσαν’ connects two separate clauses while the first ‘και’ connects the two verb phrases “εχαιρον” and “εδοξαζον”.
As far as causality is concerned in the second clause, that cannot be determined by an analysis of syntax/grammar. I believe there is over-analysis here, as far as explicit/implicit etc. is concerned. What is clear from the text is this: Those that were (already) ordained to eternal life believed. Whether or not the ‘ordaining’ to eternal life was the cause of their believing is not said.
However, anyone who read that passage would have assumed that they believed because they were ordained to eternal life. That’s just a natural interpretation of the wording, especially since ‘οσοι’ means “as many as”. Basically, exactly as many as were ordained to eternal life believed, no more and no less. It suggests that none believed that hadn’t already been ordained to eternal life, and likewise every single person that had been ordained to eternal life did believe. It doesn’t say it’s the cause of their belief, but then we can ask how we ever establish causality. If event B always occurs when event A does, and never occurs if event A hasn’t, and we establish that event A happens prior in time to event B, then we would say event A is the cause of event B. I may be wrong, but I believe this is the way causes are always determined, even in science.
I realize that this verse has huge theological implications, and my username may hint at my theological leanings but I honestly can’t see how this verse can be interpreted in any other way unless there is a desire to maintain a position that seems to go contrary to the verse.
I wanted to add one more thing to this. Nothing in the syntax/grammar of the verse suggests that the ‘ordaining to eternal life’ caused their ‘believing’. However, the semantics of the verse do suggest this. Follow me for a moment. A certain number of people were ordained to eternal life, which suggests they were appointed by something/one outside of themselves. Luke makes a point to say that those (and only those) that were ordained believed, resulting in eternal life. Consider this phrase: ‘As many as were ordained to death fell by the sword’. It does not explicitly say that the ‘ordaining’ caused the deaths, but semantically that is what is being suggested, and is the way anyone would naturally understand it. Of course there would be intermediate causes (ordaining doesn’t kill people, swords do!), but that doesn’t change the meaning at all. However, a phrase such as ‘as many as were ordained to eternal life wrote long poems’ does not suggest a cause/effect relationship. It comes down to semantics. If the second action results in the condition which was ordained then the suggestion is cause/effect, otherwise most would interpret it as a coincidence or something else. ‘Believing’ results in eternal life (by the theology of the author), so it results in the condition that was ordained, like the first example (death by sword) and unlike the second example (writing long poems). Looking at the semantic structure of the phrase like this is very helpful I think and is not over-analysis at all.
Technically ησαν τεταγμενοι, which makes it pluperfect passive. The verb is τασσω, which carries the meaning of ‘appointing, arranging, putting in order’, unless I’m mistaken. This verb forms compounds that generally carry the meaning ‘to command, order’: επιτασσω, διατασσω → ‘command’ / υποτασσω → ‘subject’. I think the verb form conveys the meaning that 'they were in the state of being appointed/arranged at the time of the main verb επιστευσαν. I’m all ears to any other suggestions, that’s just what I got.
Oh I am not really disagreeing with what you’re saying (and my apologies for not including “ησαν”; that was just sloppiness). The thing is, the way I read it, it seems like it’s talking about predestination. I know for a fact that not all agree on this matter (predestination that is) within Christianity. Since, being an atheist, I am, in a way, an outsider, I can’t say I can see how this can be interpreted differently (no set of beliefs lead me another way; I see the text purely linguistically) . Plus, my interest is purely theoretical; from a linguistic point of view and from a general interest to know exactly what the prominent religion in all places I’ve lived really says about important things such as salvation etc.
However, I am pretty sure that there are scholarly works that interpret the word differently. I can’t see those who believe otherwise overlooking this passage and there must be some logical explanation, some other interpretation that stands up to argument, making choosing the interpretation a non-linguistic matter. I will be more than surprised if that is not the case since this is a major point. That’s what I was referring to (in a very clumsy way I must admit).
Ok, yes I follow you. Actually, being that you don’t have a complex theological system to maintain, your opinion is very weighty. My point was exactly yours: that the verse seems to describe the doctrine called ‘predestination’ very clearly. It’s hard to read it any other way. Those are my theological beliefs though, and I bring those to the verse before even reading it, that’s why I expressed my possible bias. So Irene, you verify what I’ve said, which is the ‘normal’ reading of this verse would give the idea of predestination, but since this is a hotly debated topic amongst christians, it’s been widely discussed. I’m really interested to hear a good counter-argument that it doesn’t describe ‘predestination’. If anyone comes from that viewpoint (I know we have linguaphiles of all different stripes here) please speak up.
I have been following this thread out of an interest in the theological aspect as well as the linguistic.
A New Testament Greek resource titled, “Robertson’s Word Pictures” does suggest a subtle translation difference and offers a broader interpretation based on the contest rather than merely the words themselves.
As many as were ordained to eternal life (hosoi ēsan tetagmenoi eis zōēn aiōnion). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tassō, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word “ordain” is not the best translation here. “Appointed,” as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God’s side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God’s plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away.
Not trying to argue here, just answering IreneY’s question regarding alternative translations.
but I honestly can’t see how this verse can be interpreted in any other way unless there is a desire to maintain a position that seems to go contrary to the verse.