Wesley and Watson examine who is Appointed to Eternal Life (Acts 13:48)


Richard Watson (1781-1833) was an Arminian theologican. In chapter 27 of his Theological Institutes he examines several passages in Scripture that are commonly used to support unconditional election.

Unconditional election asserts that God, before the foundation of the world, made an unchangeable decree in which He chose ‘a set number of people’ out of the entire human race to receive eternal life. These elect, and only these, are given the necessary and irresistible grace that enables the person to believe.

Watson disagreed with this, asserting that the election of individuals to salvation was based on foreseen faith and the unchangeable decree that God would save, through the blood of Christ, whosoever should believe.

One of the passages Watson examines is Acts 13:48 (NET), arguing that those ‘appointed to eternal life’ does not refer to unconditional election.

When the Gentiles heard this, they began to rejoice and praise the word of the Lord, and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed.

Watson makes some observations to refute this, including examining each of the other seven passages (Matthew 28:16; Luke 7:8; Acts 15:2; 22:10; 28:23;Romans 13:1; 1 Corinthians 16:15) in which the Greek word τασσο (appointed) appears.

He concludes that:

Thus the word never takes the sense of predestination; but, … [the] prevalent idea is that of settling, ordering, and resolving; and the meaning of the text [Acts 13:48] is, that as many as were fixed and resolved upon eternal life, as many as were careful about, and determined on salvation, believed. For that the historian is speaking of the candid and serious part of the hearers of the apostles, in opposition to the blaspheming Jews; that is, of those Gentiles “who, when they heard this were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord,” is evident from the context. The persons who then believed, appear to have been under a previous preparation for receiving the Gospel; and were probably religious proselytes associating with the Jews.

Watson’s conclusion, that the Gentiles who were “devoting” themselves to receiving eternal life are those that believed, has ample support. Gentile proselytes are mentioned in Acts 13:43. They would certainly fit Watson’s description of those who were “fixed and resolved upon eternal life”. When these people who were diligently seeking eternal life heard the message that Paul and Barnabas proclaimed they readily trusted in Jesus. And, as Watson notes, the passage describes the Jews in Acts 13:46 as personally responsible for rejecting the offer of eternal life.

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 16:15, shows us that this Greek word τασσο can be translated as “devoted” (ESV, NASB, NET) indicating that people are focused on accomplishing something. In the Corinthians passage the people were devoting themselves to the ministry of the saints. In Acts 13:48 they are devoted to finding out how to receive eternal life.

The question we have to examine next is, does the Greek grammar that undergirds Acts 13:48 also support this interpretation?

In Acts 13:48, the verb (τασσο) is a participle in the perfect tense. In this tense the verb can be parsed as being in the middle or the passive voice. If it is in the middle voice it means that the people appointed (or devoted) themselves to eternal life, which is how Watson reads it. If it is the passive voice it tells us that the Gentiles are not performing the action of “appointing”. Someone else is performing the action and appointing them.

The grammar supports both of these translations:

  • many who had devoted themselves to eternal life believed
  • many who were appointed to eternal life believed

The first translation looks a lot like the passage in 1 Corinthians 16:15. However, it is important to note that in the Corinthians passage the verb (τασσο) is in the active voice and has the noun “themselves” explicitly provided. So the rendering there is clearly “they devoted themselves”.  However, the grammar in Acts 13:48 is less clear. Daniel Wallace (link) notes the use of the middle voice is ‘extremely rare’, which is why most translations of Acts 13:48 favor the passive voice. The people that believed were being appointed by another actor. The common interpretation is that God is the actor, appointing these people to salvation.

It is important to note that this passage does not tell us why God appointed these people to eternal life. It is possible that this appointment to eternal life refers to God’s unconditionally electing them. However, it is also just as probable that the people were appointed to eternal life because God foreknew they would have faith.

That leaves us with these possible interpretations:

  • many who had devoted themselves to eternal life believed
  • many who were unconditionally elected by God to eternal life were given irresistible grace and believed
  • many who were elected by God to eternal life based on His foresight of their faith were given resistible grace and believed

Since neither the passage, nor its context, nor the grammar firmly guide us to the proper interpretation, it is our theological views that will determine or understanding of this passage.

John Wesley, another Arminian theologian, in his Explanatory Notes on the Bible, favors something close to the third interpretation. Here is what he wrote:

It is observable, the original word is not once used in Scripture to express eternal predestination of any kind. The sum is, all those and those only, who were now ordained, now believed. Not that God rejected the rest: it was his will that they also should have been saved: but they thrust salvation from them (Acts 13:46). Nor were they who then believed constrained to believe. But grace was then first copiously offered them. And they did not thrust it away, so that a great multitude even of Gentiles were converted. In a word, the expression properly implies, a present operation of Divine grace working faith in the hearers.

This passage in Acts is a good example of how difficult it can be to interpret a passage and that often there are several possibilities. It also demonstrates how our theological presuppositions can influence us in the process.

7 thoughts on “Wesley and Watson examine who is Appointed to Eternal Life (Acts 13:48)

  1. It is important to note that the tense of the verb translated “ordained” or “disposed” is perfect, passive, participle. These people did not dispose themselves, they were disposed to eternal life. Whether it refers to election in the sense of being enrolled or inscribed, or to effectual calling, the force of the passage is that they were acted on and not the actors. Additionally, if any should suppose the reference to be to some sort of ineffectual, preceding grace, it is important that everyone (as many as-hosos) who was thus dispose, believed. Not one of them rejected the gospel.

    • Randy, thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.

      As noted in the article it is possible for the participle to be interpreted as being in either the middle or the passive voice. Therefore it is grammatically sound to interpret this as “they devoted themselves”.

      The book of Acts is primarily to demonstrate the spread of the Gospel. The apostles took Acts 1:8 seriously and went from Jerusalem to the outermost parts of the world as witnesses in the power of the Spirit.

      I don’t read too much into the fact that here Luke emphasizes that those devoted to God (Jewish proselytes) accepted the message that Jesus was the Messiah.

      As to the force of the passage, maybe you could elaborate on that point.

      • There are three considerations that I believe are very important in approaching texts such as this.

        1. Though passages such as this may support and buttress what we learn from the rest of the NT, they cannot be the basis of our doctrine. Our theology must be drawn from theological or didactic passages not from historical and narrative passages. Such theological passages must inform our understanding of narrative passages.

        2. We must consider what the writer is telling us. Is he telling us these people wanted to believe [disposed themselves] so they believed, or is he in the context that is judicially charged [meaning that God has imposed judicial blindness on the Jews, see v. 46], explaining why these Gentiles believed when the Jews who were then natural heirs to Abraham’s promise refused to believe? Can we really believe he would waste ink by telling us they believed because they wanted to and the Jews didn’t believe because they didn’t want to? No one would need such an explanation of the obvious. Of course, they believed because they were disposed to eternal life. The real question is why they were so disposed and the Jews, the natural heirs, were not?This is what I mean by the force of the passage.

        3. Unless there is some compelling reason for doing so, we should never depart from the most reasonable and normal grammatical usage. There is no reason to understand the tense of the verb tasso” in a way that is very rare. If it is very rare, we should assume it was not intended to be used this way unless we cannot understand it in any other way. Understanding it as a passive voice is in line with the theological teaching of the doctrinal passages of the New Testament.

      • Randy,

        The 3 points you listed are worth considering. But, I am not basing my doctrine on the narrative in Acts 13. Instead this post shows that a common proof-text for unconditional election may have several valid interpretations. Two possible interpretations do not require one to hold to unconditional election and the use of this passage as a proof text is unwarranted.

        The real question is why they were so disposed and the Jews, the natural heirs, were not?
        The passage is part of the unfolding history of the spread of the gospel that was first taken to the Jews as the chosen people of God. As they continued to reject this message Paul took it to the Gentiles.

        The Jews were waiting for a Messiah to crush their enemies and install the kingdom. The were so blinded by there presuppositions on how the Messiah was to come that they missed Jesus. They heard the message and “thrust it aside”. They did not understand that the Messiah did come to crush their enemies – but that wasn’t Rome, it was Satan, the debt of sin, and death. The Gentiles were more open to this message and were devoted to hearing from Paul about God and how they might be saved. This story culminates in the book of Acts with the Gospel spreading in Rome itself

  2. UPDATE: came across this today

    Jack Cottrell argues for the middle voice in this article on SEA:

    The question is this: how can this be reconciled with the Arminian (non-Calvinist) view? The key lies in the form of the main Greek verb, tassō. The basic meaning of this verb is “to place, to order, to appoint, to ordain, to determine, to arrange in order.” As it appears in this text, the verb form is the participle tetagmenoi. It is simply assumed that this is the PASSIVE form of the verb, thus: “to be appointed, to be ordained, to be destined.” What is often forgotten is that in the Greek language, often the passive and the middle form of verbs are spelled exactly the same way. That is the case here. The word tetagmenoi can also be the MIDDLE form of the verb. Here is the main point: that is how it should be understood in Acts 13:48.

    • Seems he was at least open to the idea.

      Watson’s second contribution to Arminian theology was his denial of God’s timelessness, or the “eternal now” theory of God’s eternity. He also denied divine immutability. Not all Arminians have agreed with Watson about these matters, but he opened the door to later developments within Arminianism, such as open theism. More importantly, however, he wrestled creatively and constructively with the issue of God’s relationship with time in view of the reality of free will and creatures’ interactions with God. Until Watson, most Arminian theologian, including Arminius, held to the Augustinian interpretation of God’s eternity; that is, there is no duration of God’s being in or through time, or there is no real succession of past, present and future in God.

      Source: “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities” by Roger Olson.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s