• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
The Grammar of Acts 2:38Baptism FOR or Baptism BECAUSE OF ?(The Peshitta Knows!)Abstract: In an earlier version of this page, I wrote, that A.T. Robertson wasapparently the first to suggest that the Greek phrase in Acts 2:38 should betranslated as "because your sins are forgiven" instead of the more usual "for theforgiveness of your sins". However, I have since been referred to an internetlink to a 19th Century article from Volume IV of Lard's Quarterly which indicatesthat the American Baptist scholar, Dr. John A. Broaddus proposed a similar (if notidentical) view in the mid-1800's. Based on this article, Dr. Broaddus' viewseems to have first publically appeared in The Religious Herald in Greenville,South Carolina in 1867. The article was responded to by J. W. McGarvey whoobserved that it was the first time he had encountered such an argument. Othersources easy to locate on the internet indicate that Dr. Broaddus had been writingarticles critical of the Campbell-Stone movement since the 1830's. If theindicated links become broken, please notify me and I will provide an alternatelink. Likewise, if anyone can discover a presenter of this idea earlier than Dr.Broaddus, please notify me.Since Dr. Broaddus's view is so similar to Robertson's, but since Robertson andhis Word Pictures is perhaps more widely known, the comments below will addressRobertson's presentation rather than Broaddus'. The reader is strongly advised toexamine Broaddus' analysis preserved in Lard's Quarterly. McGarvey's respondingcritique, which follows Broaddus' explanation, appears fatal, but I haveEvangelical person's merely shrugging off what McGarvey wrote. This reaction isindicative of major hermeneutical ignorance and brainwashing. It is my hope thatthe few additional notions I have included below may serve to open the minds ofthose who yet retain a spirit of honor and integrity.Being totally hostile to the notion that any action of ours could be"sacramental", i.e. could result in the forgiveness of sins, Roberston went togreat lengths to further establish his doctrine. However, if he had been readingthe text in the Peshitta (the Aramaic translation of the Greek New Testament)instead of English, he would not have been able to even suggest such analternative! Nor, if he knew what is now known about Hebrew idioms would he havebeen able to suggest comparing Acts 2:38 with Matt 3:11. These facts demonstratethat, Greek scholar though he supposedly was, his private theological andsoteriological views led him astray. And through him and his students, manyothers have unwittingly followed.Some advice...Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation weshare, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was oncefor all entrusted to the saints.NIV Jude 1:3So I will always remind you of these things,...I think it is right to refresh yourmemory as long as I live...And I will make every effort to see that, after mydeath, you will always be able to remember these things....I now write untoyou;...I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance... I want you to recall thewords spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lordand Savior through your apostles.NIV 2 Peter 1:12-15; 3:1-2Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our heartssprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.AV Heb 10:22Note: In order to view Greek words clearly on this page, please download and
 
install this TTF Greek font .About Baptismal RegenerationLet me say in preface that, considering nearly twenty centuries of historicalstatements, plus many personal discussions, I have never encountered any writer orspeaker who believed, taught, preached or interpreted the scriptures to mean thatbaptism by itself--apart from prior faith, repentance and confession--broughtabout or effected the remission of sins, the regeneration of the believer, anentry into Jesus Christ or his body (the Church), or any other blessing. (I haveheard rumors of a rare missionary or two in India who taught such things, but havebeen unable to personally verify the rumor.) However, this very thing--this falseconcept--is exactly what certain Baptists and Evangelicals have, since the 19thCentury, accused others of believing and teaching, even calling them a "cult".This misrepresentation and misleading slander hardly honors the accusers! (Suchan accusation, though on other grounds, was also made by Calvin against the RomanCatholics.) It is highly significant that the AnteNicene Fathers were not a bitshy of frequently using the word "regeneration" in connection with baptism. Whenwe seek to remember the content of the faith that was once for all given to thesaints we would do well to discover what the early Church actually taught.Repudiation of the Traditional InterpretationFrom about 1867 there has been a divergent interpretation of the Holy Spirit'swords spoken through Peter, recorded at Acts 2:38. That divergent view was, asfar as I have been able to determine, first issued by Dr. John A. Broaddus, andthen by A.T. Robertson in his Word Pictures of the New Testament in the 1930's.Robertson was an American Baptist and most of those who have repeated his wordsand supported his interpretations have been American Baptists, or those instructedby such. On the other hand, most major Greek grammarians, lexicographers orcommentaries have scoffed at and rejected his interpretations. The divergent viewunder consideration emphatically denies, and attempts to refute on grammaticalgrounds, the traditional and orthodox, so-called, "sacramental" interpretation.Robertson was eventually the instructor of two Baptist students, Dana and Manteywho, about 1950, published a grammar of the Greek New Testament. The mostdistinctive item about this grammar is that it fully repeats the second of the twopropositions Robertson asserted. Many others have since written and publishedarticles and books containing the same matter. Here then are Robertson'spropositions from Vol. 3.[1].The comparison...Then Peter [said] to them, "(Youpl) Repentpl, and be baptizedsing each onesing ofyoupl in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and youpl shallreceivepl the gift of the Holy Spirit."Traditional version Acts 2:38Then Peter [said] to them, "Repentpl, and youpl shall receivepl the gift of theHoly Spirit, (and be baptizedsing each onesing of youpl in the name of JesusChrist because of the remission of your sins)"Robertson's version Acts 2:38Robertson's Proposition #1.Because the verbs "repent" and "receive" are both 2nd person plural forms, and "bebaptized" is 3rd person singular, then the phrase "and be baptized...your sins" isa parenthetical expression separating the two main verbal ideas (repent &receive). Therefore, Peter is actually telling them to repent and they would thenbe able to receive the Holy Spirit, signifying their acceptance with God (Acts10:44-48). Then, "because your sins have been [already] remitted, be baptized" asa witness to others of the fact.
 
Proposition #1 answered.Purely on grammatical grounds, Robertson's assertions are clearly fabricated forulterior reasons not related to the text itself. He fails--as do those who parrothim[2].--to mention the fact that the "you" immediately following the commandgiven to "each one" to "be baptized" is plural ("...each one of YOU).Grammatically, it makes perfect sense to have the person and number shift from 2ndplural to 3rd singular and back again, because the subject "each one" (ekastov) isitself 3rd person singular. Peter is simply addressing the crowd as a whole, theneach individual within the crowd as parts of the whole. This is nothing specialand is quite common in normal English usage as well, especially in making publicspeeches before large audiences. To claim that the shift in person and numberindicates the introduction of a parenthetical idea is to set a translationalprecedent which is unnecessary in the Greek and hardly, if ever, to be found inthe various translations of the Greek into numerous languages. More will be saidabout this below. More seriously, Robertson's proposition completely ignores (ordestroys) the normal, conjunctive use of kai. Even in English, "and" joins twoideas; it seldom separates them! Robertson confirms this in his comment on Matt3:11 where he quotes McNeile, "Spirit and fire are coupled [joined] with onepreposition, as a double baptism." Similarly, one must ask, why do Robertson andhis followers seek to rearrange the word order (syntax) only of passages thatinvolve baptism? (e.g. Matt 26:28)Robertson's Proposition #2.Because our remission of sins and salvation is based solely on our faith in whatGod's grace accomplished by Christ's shed blood, then it is wrong to think thatthe act of being baptized has any effect or result attached to it at all.Therefore, it makes better sense to translate the phrase in Acts 2:38 as "bebaptized because your sins are forgiven." [underlined emphases supplied]Proposition #2 answered.It is clear from Robertson's phrasing that he has formed a conclusion beforehe examined the grammar, and then formed his grammatical explanation to agree withhis soteriology. In other words, he has practiced isogesis instead of exegesis.This is nothing very new, since many famous writers and preachers have done thesame, especially since the days of Jerome and Augustine. Robertson's repudiationof over 1800 years of Church exposition is really based on a perceived conflictbetween Faith and Reason, between Spirit and Matter and between Grace andObedience. It is further based on Augustine's and Calvin's theology andsoteriology which stated that Man can have NO part at all in his salvation; thatGod has to do EVERYthing. It's too bad (for them) that the scriptures--not tomention ALL the Fathers before the 4th Century and quite a few afterward--wrotethe opposite.Robertson wrote that, how one understands the Holy Spirit's words in Acts2:38 depends on whether you "look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or ofevangelical theology". Partly, this is true, but it should not be so. How oneunderstands it should be based on the consistent teaching of the Church from thebeginning (once given) until now. To abandon traditional doctrine (e.g. asacramental view of baptism or of the Eucharist) because it disagrees with ourunderstanding, is to commit the opposite mistake of the Roman church. By"sacramental" Robertson means the ancient idea that a particular action can resultin bringing peace between an angry god and whomever the god is angry at. Thus,the throwing of a young virgin female into the mouth of a threatening volcano wasthought to ward off an eruption. Likewise, the shedding of a particular animal'sblood was believed capable of inducing God to forgive the offending person whomade the sacrifice. (And, even Evangelicals and Baptists teach that by "confessingwith the mouth the Lord Jesus" one will be saved. Rom 10:9 - actually, abaptismal passage!) By associating this idea with the view termed sacramental,Robertson also distinguishes it from that of Evangelical theology. Robertson
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
acts2and38

Baptism alone saves nobody. Pagans baptized in vain. Rather it is through the grace of God that we accept Jesus' sacrifice at Calvary, and by active faith, we obey the truth to the saving of our soul. Satan has desired to deceive many by false Christians who claim, believe but not act on the word. Well, DEMONS BELIEVE ARE THEY THEN SAVED? NO. Faith without works is dead. nobody can work their way to haven but no true faith does not show works says Ephesians 2:8-10 also. We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works. No unto a triad of titles. John 5:43,14:26, and Matthew 1:21 as well; and Ephesians 3:15 state this clearly! We are as filthy rags without the covering our christ upon and in us. Emmanuel, God with us. If you do not actually feel and know God inside of you, then your lost. Plain and simple, read Romans 6:4, Galatians 3:27, and Colossians 2:12. The sinner's prayer (Which is a work in itself! Will never save anybody from Hell. Read Matthew 7:20-27. My friends, I have tried many churches and ways to find God. To get enlightened with the spirit. You alone must do what is right for you. But God will hold all accountable in judgement who refuse his name in all things, Colossians 3:17. DO ALL WORDS AND DEEDS IN JESUS NAME. BAPTISM IS BOTH! I tell you this because I want all to be saved by water baptism through their faith and his grace. Nobody deserves to go to the lake of fire -EXCEPT SATAN AND HIS DEVILS. It was not created for us. Please kindly consider my words and God bless you always in Jesus name.

reply08 / 17 / 2009
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...