Christmas 2025

 Wishing all our readers a happy and blessed Christmas season. 

  

Hell and the Fate of the Wicked

 

For many years, I have wrestled with hell. By that I mean the doctrine of the final state of the wicked.

There are a spectrum of views, of course, on this subject, but in my view it comes down to two main views among evangelicals. A third view, that ultimately everyone will be saved (known as "universalism") is not supported by more than a tiny minority of those claiming to be evangelical. That leaves two views among evangelicals.

First, there is what is known as the traditional view that the final state of the non-saved is eternal conscious torment and punishment in hell. This view is almost inconceivable for the human mind to comprehend. For a person to experience punishment and, in some sense, pain, for all eternity is an idea so horrific that I think few of us want to even contemplate it. The exact details are sketchy at best biblically - darkness, fire, pain, torment, certainly much less detailed than the vivid medieval depictions of the likes of Dante in writing and Bosch in art.

Nevertheless, it is the most common view held by Reformed and evangelical Christians and there are a number of strong biblical arguments in its favour. It is also the view taught in the Reformed confessions.

Several verses are difficult to reconcile with the idea that the punishment in hell is only temporary in duration.

Matthew 25:46 is one such verse where Jesus himself says: "These [the wicked] shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Notice he does not say "eternal death" in contrast to eternal life, but "eternal punishment". At least on the face of it, if eternal life is never ending, it would appear that eternal punishment may be never ending also.

A second verse of relevance is Revelation 14:10-11, speaking of those who worship "the beast": "He also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshippers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."

"The smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever" does not sound like annihilation to me. 

A third relevant passage is Revelation 20:10 and 15. "The devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are also. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.... If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."

Again, on the face of it, it could be argued that since the lake of fire seems to inflict torment forever, and all the wicked are thrown in there, their suffering would be eternal.

The second view has several different names, but in essence it is that while there is punishment in hell for the wicked, at some point the conscious torment ends and the person in hell ceases to exist. This view is sometimes called "Conditional Immortality" or "Annihilationism". It is sometimes portrayed as if this view teaches that when the wicked die, they immediately cease to exist. There may be some who teach that, but the mainstream of this view is that the wicked are punished in hell for a period of time related to the punishment they deserve for their sins, but that this punishment does not continue forever, but eventually they cease to exist.

In the first view, if a sinner is tormented in hellfire for a million years, he is no nearer the end of his infinite punishment than when he first entered hell. In the second, if the just punishment is punishment for a million years, at the end of this time, the sinner ceases to exist and the active punishment ends, though the sentence of eternal death remains effective forever. 

Like many theological disputes, and perhaps more than most, there are good biblical arguments on both sides. Anyone who thinks that the opposite side in this discussion does not have good arguments, simply does not understand the best arguments of the other side.

It is unlikely we will ever be able to be certain about which view is correct this side of eternity. I admit that I cannot really conceive what eternal active punishment looks like. For that matter, I can hardly conceive what everlasting life looks like either. Part of me hopes that annihilationism is true. There may be people I love in hell after all. Eventual non-existence seems more attractive than eternal existence in suffering. As many have pointed out, how can the saints fully rejoice in heaven, knowing their loved ones are writhing forever in the pain of hell?

Yet we must not let our emotions guide our doctrine, but the teaching of the Word of God. And as we have seen, there are certainly verses that point in the direction of eternal conscious punishment. 

All I can say is: "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25). Whatever God does with the wicked will be the right thing in the end and it will be marvellous in our eyes (Psalm 118:23) because the fate of the wicked whatever else it is, will be according to divine justice.

Advent 2025

 

Yesterday was the first Sunday of Advent. It marks the beginning of a new Christtian year and the start of the period of Advent leading up to Christmas.

Advent comes from the Latin "adventus" which means "coming" or "arrival". It refers to the period of waiting for the coming or arrival of Jesus Christ, both in terms of his first coming as a baby born in Bethlehem and his second coming in glory at the end of the world. A third sense, which we do not often focus on, is the coming of Christ to live in the hearts of believers through the Holy Spirit.

The long run up to Christmas, much longer in the world of modern commerce than in the church calendar, is one of my favourite seasons of the year.

The great advent hymn, "O come, O come, Emmanuel" can be sung with any of the three senses of the coming of Christ in mind.

I was very interested to learn recently that though the words and music of this great hymn are ancient, they were not joined together until the 19th century, when John Mason Neale translated a medieval Latin text into English in 1851 and then got his friend Thomas Helmore, who used a French medieval sacred tune and reharmonised it to work with Neale's words. For many years there was doubt as to whether had actually composed the tune and only claimed to have "discovered" it. However, in 1966 it was established that it was an ancient French tune. The tune is known as VENI EMMANUEL after the Latin text's opening words.

The resulting text and tune combine to make one of the greatest of advent carols. I could not imagine going through advent without singing this great hymn at least once.

 

The Case for Reasoned Eclecticism (in New Testament Textual Criticism)

Codex Sinaiticus, 4th Century Greek Manuscript

Few topics stir as much debate among Christians, historians, and biblical scholars as the question of how we determine the original text of the New Testament. I am certainly no expert on textual criticism, but I have been interested in the subject for many years and here are where my thoughts on this subject have taken me so far.

Let's start with a few facts that are not in dispute. The books of the New Testament were originally penned by the apostles and the originals they produced are called the autographs. In God's wisdom, we no longer possess the original autographs—all have been lost in time, and so none can be venerated by Christians. We do not possess the autographs, but we do possess over 5,800 Greek manuscripts and thousands more in ancient translations, especially Latin. 

The sheer abundance is a blessing and vastly exceeds the manuscript evidence for any other work of antiquity. Yet this abundance of manuscripts also presents a challenge. Prior to the advent of the printing press in the Renaissance period, every copy of the New Testament had to be laboriously copied by hand. As a result, all manuscripts differ in places with every other manuscript in thousands of ways. Most of these are tiny and largely inconsequential such that they would not even show up in an English translation (spellings, word order, etc.). However, there are hundreds of places where the manuscripts' differences do affect the text—none are so significant that they seriously affect any doctrine—but they do result in potentially different readings within the New Testament. These are known as "textual variants". In modern bibles, you will find them on most pages of the New Testament, where the main text reads one way, but footnotes present alternative possibilities. 

The question is: How do we decide which reading is most likely the original?

There are a number of different schools of thought among scholars as to how best to answer this question. 

The most widely used and academically respected approach today is known as reasoned eclecticism. This method stands behind the standard critical editions that lie behind almost all mainstream English translations. These are called the Nestlé-Aland 28th Edition and the United Bible Societies 5th Edition (known as NA28 and UBS5).

While no method is perfect, reasoned eclecticism offers the most balanced and historically sensitive way to reconstruct the earliest recoverable and most likely original text.

Though not an essential part of reasoned eclecticism per se I think it is also worth stating that my personal view is that the text of the autographs, the actual words of the apostles that are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), have not been lost, but are to be found in the manuscript evidence God has providentially preserved. The true reading is to be found either in the main printed text or the footnotes of our bibles.

The other thing I would want to add is that there are sometimes when I believe the academic consensus on what the most likely original reading is may be incorrect. Reasoned eclecticism leaves it open to each person to study the evidence, consider the arguments, and make up their own mind. Some may complain this leaves uncertainty as to the original text, but I would simply reply that it is the existence of textual variants in the text that creates this uncertainty. Reasoned eclecticism simply embraces the facts. Other approaches seem to want to trade truth for certainty and may end up with neither.

The following are the main reasons why I believe that reasoned eclecticism is the best approach to New Testament textual criticism.

1. Reasoned Eclecticism Uses ALL the Manuscript Evidence, Not Just Part of the Evidence

Some approaches prioritize the numerical majority of extant manuscripts (known as the Majority Text or Byzantine Priority Approach), and others almost exclusively privilege a single text type (as in some Alexandrian-priority arguments). Reasoned eclecticism avoids both extremes.

It considers:

• External evidence: the age, geographical distribution, and textual relationships of manuscripts.
• Internal evidence: what scribes tended to do, and what an author is likely to have written.

By drawing from the full spectrum of available data: papyri, uncials, minuscules, versions, and patristic citations. It avoids the tunnel vision that comes from using only one subset of the evidence.

Reasoned eclecticism makes the simple but essential claim: the original reading is more likely to survive in the oldest manuscripts, all other factors being equal. Thus the witness of a few oldest sources is at least if not more valuable that a large majority of later manuscripts. Fundamental to this approach is the recognition that manuscripts must be weighed and not just counted. Secondly, where the external evidence is not clear-cut, we must examine the internal evidence and a judgment is needed to assess which reading is (a) least likely a scribal error or addition and (b) is the variant that most likely explains the existence of the other variants.

2. Reasoned Eclecticism Recognises That Manuscript Numbers Alone Cannot Determine Originality 

Most New Testament manuscripts were copied in the Byzantine Empire after the 9th century. They are numerous not because they preserve the earliest form of the text, but because Byzantine copying was prolific and stable. A reading supported by a thousand manuscripts from AD 1000 may be historically inferior to a reading supported by two manuscripts from AD 200.

Reasoned eclecticism therefore avoids the fallacy that “more manuscripts = more original.” Instead, it asks: Which manuscripts stand closer to the earliest recoverable stages of transmission? Often, the early papyri from Egypt represent earlier streams of copying, even if they are fewer in number.

Quality, not quantity, is what matters then sifting the available evidence.

3. Reasoned Eclecticism Acknowledges Scribal Habits (Both Errors and Expansions)

Copyists made predictable mistakes. For example, they tended to:

• Expand names and titles for clarity (“Jesus Christ” → “the Lord Jesus Christ”).
• Simplify grammar or wording.
• Harmonize parallel passages (both in the Gospels and in Paul's Letters).
• Add explanations to difficult verses or soften verese thought to be too hard.
• Add marginal notes into the body of the text for fear of leaving out anything important.

Reasoned eclecticism takes these tendencies seriously. A reading that is more awkward, shorter, or harder is often more likely to be original because scribes typically smoothed and expanded rather than created difficulties. No other method consistently accounts for this behaviour by those who copied the New Testament by hand.

4. Reasoned Eclecticism Takes Account of Authorial Style and Context

Not every variant is best explained by scribal habits alone. Sometimes one reading simply fits better with the vocabulary, theological themes, or narrative flow of the author.

For example, Johannine vocabulary is distinctive. If a variant reading uses terms foreign to John’s style, reasoned eclecticism recognises that it may be secondary. Likewise, if a variant disrupts the flow of argument, that too must be weighed.

Reasoned eclecticism gives us the freedom to integrate literary and contextual insights alongside manuscript evidence.

5. Reasoned Eclecticism Avoids Rigid Formulas and Instead Balances Probabilities

Some text-critical methods operate with simplistic rules, such as “prefer the shorter reading,” or “prefer the reading with majority support.” Reasoned eclecticism explicitly rejects such wooden approaches. Instead, it weighs evidence case by case, instance by instance, recognising that real historical transmission is complex.

This does mean scholars sometimes disagree. But disagreement is not a weakness—it’s a sign that the method is flexible, honest, and evidence-driven rather than ideology-driven.

Far from being a weakness, the fact that some conclusions have to be tentative and open to correction is a strength of the approach.

6. Reasoned Eclecticism Helps Explain Why Some Famous Passages are Disputed

Reasoned eclecticism is the method behind scholarly discussions of passages such as:

• Mark 16:9–20 ("The Longer Ending of Mark")
• John 7:53–8:11 ("The Pericope Adulterae"
• The Ending of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6
• John 5:4 (The Pool of Bethsaida) 
• Luke 2:14 
• 1 Timothy 3:16
• Romans 8:1 
• 1 John 5:7-8 ("The Comma Johanneum") 

And many other passages. 

In each case, reasoned eclecticism weighs early manuscripts, later manuscripts, scribal habits, authorial style, and historical plausibility. Sometimes the result is that a well-known reading is judged secondary. That can be uncomfortable, but it is honest.

The methodology also allows scholars and readers to judge the evidence and make up their own mind. No one is forced to accept the majority opinion on any of these variants. 

A method that never challenges traditional readings is not a historical method; it is a theological one. Reasoned eclecticism prioritises evidence over tradition while still respecting the beliefs of the Christian community.

Again, we would point out that no doctrine relies solely on a particular variant in the manuscript tradition.

7. Reasoned Eclecticism Underlies All Modern Critical Editions of the Greek New Testament 

The NA28 and UBS5 — the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament used worldwide — are both products of reasoned eclecticism. These editions are the basis of almost every major modern translation (NIV, ESV, NRSV, CSB, NASB, and others). They represent over a century of collaborative international scholarship.

No other method has produced texts as widely accepted, rigorously tested, and transparently documented.

8. Reasoned Eclecticism Aligns with How Historians Approach Other Ancient Literature

Classical scholars who edit texts like Homer, Plato, or Tacitus also use eclectic principles: they weigh manuscript age, geographic spread, internal coherence, and scribal tendencies. Reasoned eclecticism places New Testament textual criticism within the mainstream of responsible historical method, not outside it.

This does not mean that Christians do not acknowledge a vast difference between Scripture and all other writings. Of course we acknowledge the New Testament is theopneustos ("God-breathed") and as such is inerrant and infallible.

Yet, the robust process of seeking out the original text from the manuscript evidence, and showing that it can be done to an extraordinary level of certainty, is immensely helpful apologetically when engaging with non-Christians. We do not rely on bare claims of faith when establishing the text of Scripture. It can be done using principles that are valid whether the textual critic is a believer or not. This means that the text of Scripture can be accepted as accurate by anyone coming to it honestly. The truth is that 94-95% of the text of the New Testament is beyond doubt original and certain. All major doctrines and practices are clearly taught whatever Greek Text we use. The question of which text is more likely original only has a bearing on 5-6% of the text, and of these perhaps only 1-2% have any real significance at all beyond spellings and word order or saying the same thing in slightly different words.

Conclusions 

Reasoned eclecticism is not perfect—no method is—and it does not claim to be. But it is the approach that most responsibly engages with the full range of available evidence. It avoids the pitfalls of majority-based methods, sidesteps the rigidity of one-text-type theories, and resists simplistic rules. By considering external evidence and internal probabilities together, it offers the most historically plausible reconstruction of the earliest recoverable New Testament text.

In short, reasoned eclecticism gives us the best chance of hearing the New Testament as the earliest Christian communities heard and read it.

It’s Time to Take a Stand Against Catholicism’s Push for Unity (YouTube)

Should City Churches Celebrate the Harvest Festival?

 

This may seem a strange question perhaps, especially as we still bask in the heat of summer here in the UK. The question is straightforward. Should an urban church celebrate the harvest festival or is this something only relevant for rural parishes surrounded by the farms?

Growing up in church, the Harvest Thanksgiving Service as a fixed point in the church calendar, though I grew up in the inner city. Each October we had a Harvest Weekend, which consisted of a Harvest Supper—a church meal held on the Saturday evening—and a Harvest Thanksgiving Service held on the Sunday. Produce that had been donated for the harvest service was then distributed to elderly and needy people in the parish as well as to local charities working with the homeless and foodbanks.

In the church I now attend, we do not mark harvest in any way and I have always thought that was strange. The answer I once received was that as we are a city parish, harvest is something for rural parishes and so it is not relevant to us.

I didn't agree with that thinking then and I don't agree with it now.

So here are my reasons why I think celebrating harvest should be a part of urban church life as well as in rural churches.

1. Harvest Thanksgiving is about giving thanks to God for his provision for us. Christians in city parishes have no less reason to thank God for the production and supply of crops, fruit, vegetables, meat, fish and dairy produce than anyone directly involved in the production of these foods. Likewise, we can thank God for fresh and clean water, essential to life.

2. A Harvest Thanksgiving service gives us an opportunity to speak about God's creation and creation care more widely, which is obviously of relevant to all Christians wherever they live.

3. Harvest Thanksgiving can also provide an opportunity to reflect on those parts of the world that do not have enough food or clean water and encourage Christians to support charities working in these areas.

4. In urban areas, the concept of thanksgiving for the Harvest, can be broadened to include the "Harvest" of all the talents and work done by others that are good gifts from God—teachers, doctors, nurses, manufacturers, tradespeople, etc.

5. Harvest Thanksgiving in urban areas gives an opportunity to remind children (and indeed all city dwellers) that food does not ultimately come from supermarkets, but from farms and fisheries, and ultimately from God's providing hand.

These are practical reasons and possibilities to make an urban harvest relevant. There is no particular need to gather food in church for the service, though there may be benefit in doing so to support local foodbanks and charities.

It just seems really restrictive to me to suggest that only farmers or fishermen have any reason to give thanks to God when the harvest of food comes in each year. As the harvest hymn says:

All good gifts around us are sent from heaven above;
Then thank the Lord, O thank the Lord for all His love. 

Christian Standard Bible Anglicised Edition

When the Christian Standard Bible came out in 2017 I thought it was one of the best English translations to come out in a while. It ticked pretty much every box for me in what I look for in an English translation, except that back then in was not available in a British English or anglicised edition. This is important to me as a reader as the American spelling of many important biblical words are jarring, especially Saviour and other "our" words.

 I actually wrote to Holman (the publisher) to ask if there were any plans to bring out a British English edition. Initially, there were no plans, but I was delighted when the CSB Anglicised edition came out about a year ago in summer 2024.

I really do think the CSB is an exceptionally readable and accurate translation that does not consider itself bound by Bible translation tradition. A good example would be John 3:16, which is traditionally rendered something like: "For God so loved the world that he have his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him would not perish but have eternal life.

 The CSB reads: " For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

I would highlight three improvements in translation in this rendering.

1.  The Greek word Houtos normally refers to the manner in which something is done, not the degree to which something is done. Although "so" can used in either sense, the natural understanding in English of "For God so loved the world" would be that John was referring to the degree of God's love rather than the manner of God's love (which is what the Greek word means). Therefore the CSB's "For God loved the world in this way" is more accurate to the Greek.

 2.  Most scholars now recognise that monogenes does not refer to someone being only begotten, but to them being unique (literally one-of-a-kind). The CSB's "one and only" is therefore preferable to the traditional "only begotten".

3. The Greek literally refers to "every believing one" in the second half of the verse. There is no generic "whoever" in the Greek. The CSB's "everyone who believes" is much more accurate than "whoever believes".

This is just one verse, though a very famous verse. I'm sure similar points could be made throughout the CSB.

 I use the Bible Gateway website for much of my Bible study and I was delighted to see that the Christian Standard Bible Anglicised edition is now an option on the site. I haven't checked the app but I'm sure it will also be on there.

Having the CSB in British English is a great move by Holman and I now plan to use the CSB as my main Bible from now on.

On the translation spectrum, the CSB is somewhat more literal than the NIV and more natural than the ESV, which I think is an ideal balance. The footnotes in the CSB with alternative, sometimes more literal translations, are also excellent in this version. 

My Mother's Death

Christina Allan Miller (née McCulloch) (1945-2025)
 
My mother died peacefully in her sleep at Glasgow Royal Infirmary after a long battle with illness just after midnight on Sunday, 16th March. She was 79 years old. My sisters and I and the rest of the family are all deeply mourning her passing.

Christina Allan McCulloch was born in Glasgow on 3rd October 1945 and was the eldest of two children of Aaron McCulloch (1917-1990) and Jessie McCulloch née Purdie (1920-2002). Coincidentally, she shared the same birthday as my father, 3rd October, though born in different years.
She was baptised on 21st November 1945 at St Thomas' Church of Scotland on Gallowgate and remained a church member her entire life.

Her father, Aaron ('Ernie') was a Battery Sergeant Major in the Royal Canadian Artillery, stationed in the UK during World War 2 where he met my grandmother. They were married in 1944. As well as my mother, they also had a second daughter, Jean ('Jeanette') born in 1947. The family moved to Canada after the war, but unfortunately, the marriage did not endure and my grandmother and mother returned to Scotland before Jean was born.

As an adult, she later met her father and her half-siblings, Ian and Susan, in Canada and continued to be in contact with them from then on.

My mum grew up in the house she had been born in at 227 Abercromby Street and she attended St James's Primary School in Calton and John Street Secondary School in Bridgeton. She left school at sixteen and worked in several office jobs, going from office junior to senior positions in the accounts and wages departments of several local firms in Bridgeton including the large Welma Bakery.

The family were always churchgoers and my mother became a member of Greenhead and Barrowfield Church in London Road when she was about 16 years old. After it was closed down, she became a member of Calton New Parish Church near the Barras (later named St Luke's).

She later joined the Orange Lodge and it was there she met my father, James Miller (1929-2011). They were married on 23rd October 1971 and the marriage lasted until his death in 2011, less than a year short of what would have been their Ruby wedding anniversary.

After she got married, my mother gave up work and became a mother when I was born in 1972. My parents then went on to have three more children, all daughters in 1974, 1977 and 1981.

My mother was always shortsighted but in 1978 she suffered a detached retina which resulted in the loss of sight in one eye. Although this must have been a lot to come to terms with for a young woman in her early 30s, she never showed it and went on to have another child in 1981 and thereafter went back to work as a Home Help from 1985 until she retired.

The family moved to a bigger house in 1978, where she lived until her death (she only lived at two addresses from birth to death) and soon after we all started going to Bridgeton St Francis-in-the-East Parish Church in Queen Mary Street. It was there she became heavily involved in the life of the congregation.

An important event for my mother was the Billy Graham rallies held in Glasgow in 1991. Although going as a member of the choir, she came to Christ personally at one of those meetings and always felt that her faith had deepened and strengthened after that.

She was ordained as an elder of the church in 1992 and served in many ways in the church, including the church singing group, session and board meetings, fundraising, social events, and a spell as the church's cleaner. She also attended the midweek prayer and Bible study meeting faithfully for many years and two services on Sundays most weeks.

Although with four kids to look after she must not have had a lot of free time when we were growing up, she had many hobbies and interests.

She loved dogs and always had a dog or two dogs as pets all her life. They became her constant companions in later life. 
 

She loved watching films, especially thrillers, westerns and war films. Before her eyesight started to fail, she loved reading books and was a big fan of the thriller writer Jeffery Deaver. Later she would listen to audiobooks with my sister.

She was a lifelong Rangers supporter and used to attend regularly at Ibrox during the 1960s before she got married. She was still listening to games right up to when she had to go into hospital for the last time. She also loved other sports including Rugby and has been to Murrayfield several times to watch Scotland. On TV and the radio, she also liked to watch or listen to boxing matches, especially heavyweight world title fights.

She also used to knit and she was good at drawing.

She was a good singer and loved listening to all kinds of music, from the Beatles to Lady Gaga. She also enjoyed listening to classical music at times. Puccini was her favourite composer.

Every week she would write letters to her sister in Canada, and later she regularly corresponded with her father and half-sister in Canada also.

She loved East Lothian and we spent many holidays through at Port Seton. She also liked the bustle of seaside holidays at Blackpool and went to Spain on holiday several times. She later enjoyed trips to Canada a few times and New York. Later she enjoyed many holidays on the Isle of Mull or up in Nethybridge or Boat of Garten, as well as the Peak District at Chatsworth. One of her last big holidays was a cruise to Norway just last year after her first stroke.

Aside from all that, she was a fantastic mum and was very proud of her children and anything we accomplished. She doted on her grandchildren.

Above all she was my friend—I could talk to her about anything and everything—and I will miss her wisdom, her wit and her love. The whole family will always miss her, though we are grateful her health struggles are over.
 
My wife once asked her what she would like to be remembered for. She said: "That I was a formidable woman."

Rest easy mammy. You were that and so much more.

The Correct Translation of Acts 13:48

 

One of the most important verses cited in favour of Calvinism is in Acts 13:48. The verse reads, in the KJV: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

The verse's importance for Calvinism is clear. It states that it was "as many as were ordained to eternal life" who then believed. If this translation is correct, then the verse is a powerful testimony to the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. Belief follows God's ordination it would appear.

The question though, is whether this translation is accurate. It must be said that most English translations follow a similar path to the KJV, though many do not use a word as strong as "ordained". The ESV has "and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" and the NIV is similar with "all who were appointed for eternal life believed." Both these translations are sometimes said to show a bias in favour of Calvinist interpretations, but to be fair, there are few English translations that do not follow this.

There are some significant problems with this interpretation however, which we will explore.

The first thing to realise is that the Greek is more ambiguous than the English translations would have it. The key Greek word is the verb τάσσω (tasso) which can mean to place (in order), to arrange, to set (in order) as well as to appoint, to dispose, or to ordain. The word originally came from a military term referreding to "arranging or disposing a body of soldiers in regular military order" (Albert Barnes).

The verse therefore could be translated "as many as were placed for eternal life believed" or "as many as were arranged for eternal life believed" or "as many as were set in order [or just set] for eternal life believed" or "as many as were disposed for eternal life believed."

The other thing that is important is that the verb tense used, tetagmenoi, is a perfect participle and that form could either be in the middle or passive voice. If the verb is in the passive, then it does indeed mean that "as many were arranged/set in order/disposed/appointed/ordained to eternal life believed".

Even here though, it is not automatic that the verse is teaching the Calvinist doctrine, even if the verse is passive. If the tense is passive, the verse could just as accurately be translated something like "and as many as were set for eternal life believed" or "as many as were prepared for eternal life believed" or "as many as were disposed for eternal life believed" as the actual verb itself does not necessitate who was doing the arranging, preparing or disposing. It could be referring to an act of God (the Calvinist sense) or it could be referring to other things or factors, including the Gentiles being disposed or putting themselves in a position to respond to the gospel with faith. That's the trouble with the English words "ordain" or "appoint"—they clear up the ambiguity that exists in the original in one direction.

But if it is in the middle voice, then the verse should be translated with a reflexive sense as something like "as many as arranged themselves for eternal life believed" or "as many as prepared themselves" or "set themselves" or "disposed themselves".

Many non-Calvinist scholars believe the verse should either be translated "as many as were disposed for eternal life believed" (passive) or "as many as disposed themselves for eternal life believed" (middle).

Only a few translations depart from the KJV, pro-Calvinistic tradition in their renderings, to leave the interpretation of the verse open.

"Everyone who had been prepared for everlasting life believed." (God's Word translation)

"and they believe, whoever were set for life eonian." (Concordant Literal Version)

"and they believed—as many as had become disposed for life age-abiding" (Rotherham Emphasized Bible)

Another non-Calvinist view is that of John Wesley himself, who accepted the "ordained" translation but insisted it had nothing to do with predestination. The "ordaining" to belief was presumably the work of God's prevenient grace drawing them to faith, and his ordination in general that those with open hearts seeking the truth, would come to faith and find salvation should they want it by accepting the gospel.

What is clear, at the very least, is that when properly translated, Acts 13:48 is at best ambiguous as to its support for Calvinism

Personally, in context, just as the Jews "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life" (v.46), it would make perfect sense if Luke said in verse 48 that among the Gentiles as many were prepared or disposed, or as many as prepared or disposed themselves for eternal life believed. The contrast makes sense in this interpretation, whereas the Calvinist view is actually the disjointed one, with the Jews judging themselves unworthy but the Gentiles believing because God had ordained it. The parallel doesn't really work in that case.

The fairest way of treating the verse in a translation is probably to choose a rendering that leaves both the Calvinist and non-Calvinist view as possible or to have one view in the main text and the alternatives in a footnote.

Something like "as many as were prepared for eternal life believed" would be suitable with something like "or were appointed, disposed, ordained; or prepared or disposed themselves" in the footnote would be balanced and fair.

The Value of Reading Books You Don't Agree With

There's only so much time for reading in any week or any year for that matter. I confess that I mainly read books in the Reformed tradition, not because it's the tradition I agree with (though I do) but because there are so many great books of Reformed theology and by Reformed theologians and so many that haven't read yet. If I aim to read 8-12 a year that is quite good going, depending on their length, in among the other things that take up my time in any normal week. It is my belief that it is best to mainly read books that teach Christian truth and I believe Reformed theology is the best expression of Christian truth we have, outside Scripture itself.

Yet I also believe there is value in reading Christian books from outside my own comfort zone. By this I would include evangelical books that are not Reformed as well as books outside the evangelical tradition.

Even though I believe such books will contain errors, sometimes more and sometime more serious errors, sometimes less, there is still value in occasionally reading books where you know in advance that you will disagree with the author. There are at least three good reasons for doing so.

1. The first reason to read books you don't or won't agree with is because they will help you define and defend what you believe better. They will force you to think through what you really believe and when you hit points in such books where you find yourself reacting against it, this will help you focus on where those points are and why you disagree.

2. Secondly, reading books from other theological positions will help you understand the teachings of those you disagree with by having those positions explained to you by their best exponents and not just by their critics. This will help you criticise positions you disagree with more fairly and in many cases more strongly when arguing against them.

3. Thirdly, reading books you don't agree with will help you to refine your own beliefs and bring them into closer conformity with the truth. Understanding other views better will often give you a better understanding of those you disagree with, without agreeing any more with them. Occasionally, you may even be more committed to your original views having seen "the best your opponents have to offer."

I would not advise new Christians to read a lot of books like this, but mature Christians could benefit in these three ways from reading maybe one or two books a year outside your own comfort zone.