Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Question for Pastor Markle


Recommended Posts

  • Members

In Acts 13:48 the phrase "were ordained" is translated from a combination of two Greek verbs. 

The first ("were") is translated from the Greek verb "esan," which is the imperfect, active, indicative, third person, plural form of the Greek verb "eimi" (the Greek verb meaning "to be").

The second ("ordained") is translated from the Greek verb "tetagmenoi," which is the perfect, passive, participle form of the Greek verb "tasso" (the Greek verb meaning "to set in order, to appoint").  However, for the Greek verb "tasso" the perfect, passive, participle form and the perfect, middle, participle form are the same.  As such, the perfect, passive indicates that the action of the verb was enacted by another upon the subject of the verb; whereas the perfect, middle indicates that the action of the verb was enacted by oneself upon the subject of the verb.

In Greek the joining together of an imperfect form of the Greek verb "eimi" with a perfect participle creates a periphrastic pluperfect verb form, which is generally intensive in force, but may rather be consummative in force.

In the King James translation, the translators translated this construction in Acts 13:48 as a past, passive voice verb.

The primary question for understanding this phrase in Acts 13:48 is to discern who performed the "ordaining' upon these Gentiles.  Were they "ordained" by another?  Or, were they "ordained" (set in order) by themselves?  At present, I hold that they "were ordained" by themselves (by their own decision).  Contextually, I hold that this shows the clear contrast between the Gentiles who believed (because they "were ordained" by themselves) and the Jews who rejected (because they judged themselves unworthy).

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In Acts 13:48 the phrase "were ordained" is translated from a combination of two Greek verbs. 

The first ("were") is translated from the Greek verb "esan," which is the imperfect, active, indicative, third person, plural form of the Greek verb "eimi" (the Greek verb meaning "to be").

The second ("ordained") is translated from the Greek verb "tetagmenoi," which is the perfect, passive, participle form of the Greek verb "tasso" (the Greek verb meaning "to set in order, to appoint").  However, for the Greek verb "tasso" the perfect, passive, participle form and the middle, passive, participle form are the same.  As such, the perfect, passive indicates that the action of the verb was enacted by another upon the subject of the verb; whereas the middle, passive indicates that the action of the verb was enacted by oneself upon the subject of the verb.

In Greek the joining together of an imperfect form of the Greek verb "eimi" with a perfect participle creates a periphrastic pluperfect verb form, which is generally intensive in force, but may rather be consummative in force.

In the King James translation, the translators translated this construction in Acts 13:48 as a past, passive voice verb.

The primary question for understanding this phrase in Acts 13:48 is to discern who performed the "ordaining' upon these Gentiles.  Were they "ordained" by another?  Or, were they "ordained" (set in order) by themselves?  At present, I hold that they "were ordained" by themselves (by their own decision).  Contextually, I hold that this shows the clear contrast between the Gentiles who believed (because they "were ordained" by themselves) and the Jews who rejected (because they judged themselves unworthy).

Thanks Bro. Markle. If the verb is in the perfect passive, and indicates that the action was enacted by another, how can you come to the conclusion that they were "ordained" by themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Thanks Bro. Markle. If the verb is in the perfect passive, and indicates that the action was enacted by another, how can you come to the conclusion that they were "ordained" by themselves?

First, a correction in my third paragraph --

I wrote, "However, for the Greek verb "tasso" the perfect, passive, participle form and the middle, passive, participle form are the same."

I should have written, "However, for the Greek verb "tasso" the perfect, passive, participle form and the perfect, middle, participle form are the same."

The underlined portions are wherein the correction should be.  I will be editing my posting above to correct this.

Now, to answer your question --

Because in the Greek the perfect, passive, participle form and the perfect, middle, participle form are the same.  This means that the verb could be a perfect, MIDDLE, participle rather than a perfect, PASSIVE, participle.  As such, the flow of thought COULD indicate that the Gentiles had performed this action upon themselves.  For me this fits the contextual flow of thought in revealing the direct contrast between the believing Gentiles and the rejecting Jews, who certainly DID judge THEMSELVES unworthy of everlasting life.  In both cases then, personal decision is being emphasized and contrasted.

Would a Calvinist have a strong case against my position?  Yes, if he argued heavily for the passive meaning of the verb, as opposed to the middle meaning of the verb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In the following phrases, there is no "enactor": they simply "were".........

The bees swarmed; and as many as were attracted to honeysuckle approached the blossoms.....

and as many as were attached to the puppies played with them.

and as many as were devoted to their parents honored them.

and as many as were addicted to chocolate ate some.

 

Could it be that "were", as used here, is a "being verb"? And since no "enactor" is named in the verse, is possible that in this particular case this phrase "were ordained" is in the "stative" voice?

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

In the following phrases, there is no "enactor": they simply "were".........

The bees swarmed; and as many as were attracted to honeysuckle approached the blossoms.....

and as many as were attached to the puppies played with them.

and as many as were devoted to their parents honored them.

and as many as were addicted to chocolate ate some.

 

Could it be that "were", as used here, is a "being verb"? And since no "enactor" is named in the verse, is possible that in this particular case this phrase "were ordained" is in the "stative" voice?

Indeed, the verb "were" IS a being verb in both the Greek construction and in the English, as well as in your examples. 

Concerning Acts 13:48, note my statement above -- "The first ("were") is translated from the Greek verb "esan," which is the imperfect, active, indicative, third person, plural form of the Greek verb "eimi" (the Greek verb meaning "to be")."

However, in both the Greek and English construction of Acts 13:48, as well as in all of your examples, the being verb "were" is employed as a HELPING verb for another verb of action.  As such, the grammatical construction cannot simply be viewed as having a "state of being" meaning.  Furthermore, in all of your examples you have presented constructions of past, active verbs, without any element of passive voice (or middle voice, which does not actually exist in English grammar).  Yet in the Greek construction of Acts 13:48, there certainly IS the element of either passive or middle voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, heartstrings said:

One more thing, Bro. Markle. Where can I find documentation showing that this verb can be used in middle voice?

Brother Wayne,

I cannot actually provide you with documentation that this verb is definitely in the middle voice.  I cannot do so because the verb structure for the perfect, passive, participle and for the perfect, middle, participle are exactly the same.  As such, I could only provide you with documentation for the POSSIBILITY that this verb is in the middle voice.  (Furthermore, I am not a Greek "scholar" by any level of imagination; therefore, I am aware that others can understand elements in the Greek that I might miss.)

In relation to that documented evidence, a little bit of Greek language understanding would make it a bit easier.  However, if you do a google search for the following, "Greek perfect passive participle declension," you should find various sites with information on the matter.  For your purposes and "skill" (?) level, it would be best simply to find a site with a middle and passive participle declension listing.  When I did my google search (just now) to find a suggested site for you, the second site listed was the following:

http://www.chlt.org/FirstGreekBook/JWW_FGB53.html

This declension list is only about the middle and passive participle, just as is needed for the case in Acts 13:48.  Now, this list uses a different Greek verb as its example verb for the list; but the Greek rules of declension would remain the same for the Greek participle in Acts 13:48.  As such, you would want to scroll down to the "Masculine Perfect Middle and Passive Participle" listing.  You will notice that the heading joins the perfect middle and passive together for the listing because the declensions are exactly the same for both the perfect middle participle and the perfect passive participle.  If you look at the "Nominative and Vocative Plural" under this heading, you will find that the example verb begins with the doubling prefix "lelu--" (which represents the perfect tense), just as the participle "tetagmenoi" does in Acts 13:48.  Furthermore, you will find that the example verb ends with the Greek ending "--menoi." (which represents the nominative, masculine, plural participle), just as "tetagmenoi" does in Acts 13:48. 

Can I provide you with a commentary that agrees?  I could not find a single commentary among all of those that I possess that agrees specifically with the "prefect, middle, participle" claim.  However, the following two commentators did speak to a similar position concerning the contextually meaning as I presently hold: (1) "The Acts of the Apostles" by Thomas Ethelbert Page, (2) "The Acts of the Apostles" by J. Rawson Lumby.  In addition, you may want to consider "Notes on the New Testament: Acts" by Albert Barnes.  He very strongly holds for a passive meaning of the verb, and provides strong "word-study" evidence for it (enough that I am compelled to continue considering the possibilities).  However, Barnes does not take the common Calvinistic application of "pre-ordination."  Rather, Barnes views the participle as a reference unto the pre-convicting work of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of the Gentiles, so as to prepare them for the decision of belief.

I pray that this is helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In the posting above, I mentioned the commentary by Albert Barnes on Acts 13:48.  Further, I mentioned that his word study of the Greek verb "tasso" was compelling me to continue considering the possibilities concerning its intended meaning in Acts 13:48.

The following is Albert Barnes commentary on the matter:

Quote

 

There has been much difference of opinion in regard to this expression. One class of commentators has supposed that it refers to the doctrine of election—to God’s ordaining men to eternal life, and another class to their being disposed themselves to embrace the gospel—to those among them who did not reject and despise the gospel, but who were disposed and inclined to embrace it. The main inquiry is, what is the meaning of the word rendered ordained? The word is used but eight times in the New Testament: Mat. 28:16, “Into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them;” that is, previously appointed—before his death; Lu. 7:8, “For I also am a man set under authority;” appointed, or designated as a soldier, to be under the authority of another; Ac. 15:2, “They determined that Paul and Barnabas, &c., should go to Jerusalem;” Ac. 22:10, “It shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do;” Ac. 28:23, “And when they had appointed him a day,” &c.; Ro. 13:1, “The powers that be are ordained of God;” 1 Co. 16:15, “They have addicted themselves to the ministry of saints.” The word τάσσω, tasso, or τάττω, tatto, properly means to place—to place in a certain rank or order. Its meaning is derived from arranging or disposing a body of soldiers in regular military order. In the places which have been mentioned above, the word is used to denote the following things: (1) To command, or to designate, Mat. 28:16; Ac. 22:10; 28:23. (2) To institute, constitute, or appoint, Ro. 13:1; comp. 2 Sa. 7:11; 1 Sa. 22:7. (3) To determine, to take counsel, to resolve, Ac. 15:2. (4) To subject to the authority of another, Lu. 7:8. (5) To addict to; to devote to, 1 Co. 16:15. The meaning may be thus expressed: (1) The word is never used to denote an internal disposition or inclination arising from one’s own self. It does not mean that they disposed themselves to embrace eternal life. (2) It has uniformly the notion of an ordering, disposing, or arranging from without; that is, from some other source than the individual himself; as of a soldier, who is arranged or classified according to the will of the proper officer. In relation to these persons it means, therefore, that they were disposed or inclined to this from some other source than themselves. (3) It does not properly refer to an eternal decree, or directly to the doctrine of election—though that may be inferred from it; but it refers to their being THEN IN FACT disposed to embrace eternal life. They were then inclined by an influence from without themselves, or so disposed as to embrace eternal life. That this was done by the influence of the Holy Spirit is clear from all parts of the New Testament, Tit. 3:5, 6; Jn. 1:13. It was not a disposition or arrangement originating with themselves, but with God. (4) This implies the doctrine of election. It was, in fact, that doctrine expressed in an act. It was nothing but God’s disposing them to embrace eternal life. And that he does this according to a plan in his own mind—a plan which is unchangeable as he himself is unchangeable—is clear from the Scriptures. Comp. Ac. 18:10; Ro. 8:28–30; 9:15, 16, 21, 23; Ep. 1:4, 5, 11. The meaning may be expressed in few words—who were THEN disposed, and in good earnest determined, to embrace eternal life, by the operation of the grace of God on their hearts.

Barnes, A. (1884–1885). Notes on the New Testament: Acts. (R. Frew, Ed.) (pp. 214–215). London: Blackie & Son.  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

 

Having taken the time to examine Mr. Barnes' commentary and to also do the same word study of the Greek verb "tasso," I now am compelled to express a fault with Mr. Barnes' conclusions as per the portion that I have emboldened in the quote above.  Mr. Barnes claimed that "the word is never used to denote an internal disposition or inclination arising from one's own self."  Yet he had just made reference unto 1 Corinthians 16:15, wherein God the Holy used the word to indicate that "the house of Stephanas" had "ADDICTED THEMSELVES to the ministry of the saints."  Mr. Barnes indicated that this usage of the Greek verb means "to addict to; to devote to."  Well, being devoted to something certainly appears to be an internal disposition or inclination to me.  Furthermore, in the Greek of 1 Corinthians 16:15 the word for "themselves" is very specifically included.  As such, this certainly appears to be an internal disposition or inclination arising from one's own self to me.  On this ground, I no longer find Mr. Barnes' word-study conclusion to bring my present understanding under question.

_____________________________________________________________________________

On the other hand, I continue to contend that the contextual flow of thought provides a contrast between the self-decision of the Jews and the self-decision of the Gentiles in the passage.  The following is a layout of that contrast:

I.  The Decision of the Jews

A.  Acts 13:45 -- "But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy . . . ."

B.  Acts 13:45 -- ". . . And spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming."

C.  Acts 13:46 -- ". . . But seeing ye put it [the word of God] from you . . . ."

D.  Acts 13:46 -- ". . . And judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life . . . ."

II.  The Decision of the Gentiles

A.  Acts 13:48 -- "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad . . . ."

B.  Acts 13:48 -- ". . . And glorified the word of the Lord . . . ."

C.  Acts 13:48 -- ". . . And . . . believed."

D.  Acts 13:48 -- ". . . As many as were ordained [set in order by themselves] unto eternal life . . . ."

III.  The Specific Contrast between the Two

A.  The Jews were filled with envy; whereas the Gentiles were filled with gladness.

B.  The Jews spake against the gospel with contradiction and blasphemy; whereas the Gentiles glorified the word of the Lord.

C.  The Jews put the gospel away from them; whereas the Gentiles received the gospel through believing.

D.  The Jews judged themselves unworthy of everlasting-eternal life; whereas the Gentiles set themselves in order unto everlasting-eternal life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks Brother Markle,

I know the manuscript below is from the 14th Century; but it does seem to me that, in this particular usage, the "man" became "ordeyned" by his own actions.

With us, as to temptacioun, which peyne
335
Highte concupiscence./ And this concupiscence, 
336
whan it is wrongfully disposed 
336
Or ordeyned in man, it maketh hym coveite,
336
By coveitise of flessh, flesshly synne, by sighte
336
Of his eyen as to erthely thynges, and eek
336
Coveitise of hynesse by pride of herte./
337
Now, as for to speken of the firste coveitise,
337
That is concupiscence, after the lawe of oure

From "The Canturbury Tales" by Geoffrey Chaucer, circa late 14th Century

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...