|
|
|
|
A REJOINDER TO JIM EVERETT ON BAPTISM - PT. 2
E. Calvin Beisner
Acts 2:38
I must thank Mr. Everett for having caught two typographical errors in my rendition of the Greek
text of this verse. While I typed to
before onomati Ihsou Kristou, I ought
to have typed tw;
and while I gave amartivn a smooth aspirant mark, it ought to have had a rough aspirant. Neither
error affected the interpretation of the verse. Still it is important that we seek accuracy.
Mr. Everett says I have "in essence, affirmed that the preposition 'for' ('eis,' Greek word) does mean
'in order to' and involves design and purpose." I do take the word to mean such in this context, though I
realize that in other contexts it can mean "in reference to" and may even mean that in this context.
(See Waiter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, transs.
William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, rev. and aug. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, 2nd ed., Chicago,
III.: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1979, p. 230; Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon,
rev. Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968, p. 491; Gerhard Kittel,
ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1976, vol. 2, pp. 427-428; and A.T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research, Nashville, Tn.: Broadman Press, 1934, pp. 389, 592, 595--Mr. Everett is himself aware of this last
source, and cited it in his article.) I cannot but wonder, however, at his insistence that I not be allowed the
liberty of changing my mind regarding the meaning of the term. It seems only reasonable to allow people to change
their minds as additional evidence becomes available to them; indeed, he must hope I will do so in regard to the
necessity or non-necessity of baptism for salvation, or else his efforts are wasted. I therefore reserve the liberty
to change my mind regarding this interpretation of eis in this context, should I believe the evidence warrants the change;
and I feel no sheepishness in doing so, since so many Greek scholars affirm that the word may indeed have a meaning
other than that which I believe it has in this context. Thus even if Mr. Everett convinced me that my exegesis
of the passage were wrong, I would not have to agree with his.
My interpretation, it will be recalled, was that since the command to repent was given in the second person plural,
and the command to be baptized in the third person singular, and the "your" modifying "sins"
at the end of the verse was second person plural, a causal connection was to be seen between repentance and the
remission of sins, not between baptism and the remission of sins.
His first reply is to cite E.V. Srygley, Jr., his college Greek teacher. Srygley said, "There is absolutely
no problem with 'repent ye' being second person plural, and ‘be baptized every one’ being third person singular.
I have several critical (Greek text) commentaries and I have looked at several others in our library. Not one of
them even alludes to a supposed problem with the grammar of Acts 2:38.
Apparently they misunderstood my booklet. I nowhere alleged that there was a problem with Luke's grammar in Acts
2:38. My argument was that in the light of the accurate grammar there, we are forced to conclude that the causal
connection is not between "be baptized every one" and "for the remission of your sins" but
between "repent you (plural)" and "for the remission of your sins."
His second reply is that in order to arrive at my interpretation I had to "overlook completely the plural
'of you' which follows 'each one.' " "Notice, says he, "that the 'each one' (hekastos) is
followed by 'of you' (humon, plural); hence, 'each one of you' (plural) is baptized for the sins 'of you'
(plural)."
While I did not discuss the meaning or significance of umwn in the booklet, I did not overlook
the word. Due to its grammatical function in the sentence, it was immaterial to the question at hand. Here is why:
In the clause "each one of you be baptized," the word "each" is the subject of the command,
the words "of you" form a prepositional phrase that modifies "each," and "be baptized"
is the verb. In the Greek of Acts 2:38, ekastos is the subject of the clause, umwn is a plural possessive
relative pronoun modifying ekastos and functions as a prepositional phrase would in English (there is
no expressed preposition because it is implied in the genitive case of umwn), and baptisqhtw is the verb. ekastos, (each) is singular; baptisqhtw
(be baptized) is singular; umwn is plural but merely modifies ekastos; it is not the subject of the verb. The simple fact
of grammar is that "each one of you" does not comprise a plural subject, but comprises a singular subject
modified by a prepositional phrase in which the object of the preposition is plural, and in the Greek the subject
is modified by a plural relative pronoun. Thus, as I pointed out in my booklet, the command to be baptized was
given to each person singly, not to all those in the group in the plural. But the command to repent was given to
all plurally. The "your" modifying "sins" is plural. Therefore, grammatically, the connection
is between the command to repent and the remission of sins, not between the command to be baptized and the remission
of sins.
Mr. Everett's third reply is that I had to "inject the word 'all' into the prepositional phrase 'for the remission
of your sins.' " I did not intend that "all" should be understood as expressing any thought but
what is inherent in the Greek text. In English, except by context, we cannot tell whether "your" and
"you" are singular or plural; but in Greek, the form of the word changes to denote whether it is singular
or plural. "AIl" was inserted simply to make it clear that "you" and "your" were
plural, not singular.
Mr. Everett argues that 1 Cor. 16:1-2 is a parallel case (though not in every respect) to Acts 2:38. His acknowledgement
that the parallel is not exact appears to indicate that the senses in which it is not exactly parallel are unimportant
to the point in question. Unfortunately for his argument, the non- parallel aspect is precisely the most important
point in the argument.
The verses read: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia,
even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him,
that there be no gatherings when I come." Mr. Everett's argument runs: "The 'do ye' of v. 1, is second
person, plural but in v. 2, the 'every one' (hekastos, 'each one', same as Acts 2:38) and 'let him put'
are third person singular but refer to the same group specified by the plural 'do ye.' By comparison 'be baptized
each one of you' refers to the same group addressed in 'repent ye,' (Acts 2:38)."
Everything he has said is true, but irrelevant. I never questioned that "each one of you" in Acts 2:38
referred to the people in the group designated by "repent ye." The point I made was that since the relative
pronoun "your" in "remission of your sins" was second person plural, it related to the plural
"repent ye," not to the singular "each one of you be baptized.
The point at which the illustration Mr. Everett uses is disanalogous to what he thinks is going on in Acts 2:38
is in the person and number of the relative pronoun. In order for 1 Cor. 16:2 to have illustrated his point, we
would have to read not "let every one of you lay by him in store" but "let every one of you
lay by them in store." For Mr. Everett argues that the change from the singular subject to the plural
relative pronoun is of no consequence in Acts 2:38. But Paul understood that a singular subject requires a singular
relative pronoun, while a plural subject requires a plural relative pronoun; therefore, since he used a singular
subject [every one (subject) of you (relative pronoun in Greek, prepositional phrase in English)] he also used
a singular relative pronoun (him).
Precisely the same point may be made respecting Acts 11:29-30. The wording there, which actually is "Then
the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea;
which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul," would have to be "Then
the disciples, every man according to their ability, determined to send relief..." in order for this
actually to illustrate his point. But again, a singular subject (every one) demanded a singular relative pronoun
(his). And in that sentence, we see also the use of a plural relative pronoun to relate to a plural subject: "they"
in "which also they did" relates not to "every one" but to "disciples."
The number (singular or plural) of all relative pronouns must agree with the number of the subject(s) which are
their antecedents, i.e., to which they relate. Thus, the proper antecedent of "your" in "remission
of your (plural) sins" is not "each one of you" but the "you (plural)" implied in the
plural command "repent you." Again, the causal connection must be between "repent you" and
"for the remission of your sins," not between "each one of you be baptized" and "for the
remission of your sins."
Mr. Everett concludes his argument on this verse, "While Mr. Beisner may be a student of the Greek to some
degree, his scholarship does not compare to those men who work and have worked in the field of translation."
Quite so. And since I am not an expert in Greek grammar myself (though I have continued to study the language minutely
since my college Greek classes, and consulted numerous grammars, lexicons, and commentaries in my exegesis of Acts
2:38), I determined to ask someone who was a Greek grammarian of unquestioned expertise. I asked Dr. Julius R.
Mantey, co-author of the famed Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Dr. Mantey's own doctoral work
in Greek was done under Dr. A.T. Robertson, acknowledged generally as the greatest Greek scholar of our century;
upon Dr. Robertson's death, the general opinion among Greek scholars was that the mantel of greatness devolved
upon Dr. Mantey. There was, before Dr. Mantey's death, no more reputable authority living on the matter of Greek
grammar.
I presented to Dr. Mantey the translation proposed of Acts 2:38 in my booklet, and he deemed it accurate. I then
wrote in the margin of my Greek Testament next to Acts 2:38, "umwn refers to the subject metanohsate, not baptisqhtw, and therefore eis afesin
is the result phrase of metanohsate." I then asked Dr. Mantey if he would sign the marginal note,
indicating his agreement. He did so. I have enclosed a photocopy of the page bearing the note and Dr. Mantey's
signature for Mr. Everett and the publisher of The Preceptor to examine.
I make no pretense at being a great Greek scholar. But I do think Dr. Mantey's explicit endorsement of the exegesis,
combined with the argument I gave, is weighty evidence that the exegesis is accurate. Since then I have presented
the exegesis to a number of Greek scholars, Christian and nonchristian alike, and all have thought it accurate.
I conclude, therefore, that baptism does not stand in a causal relation to the remission of sins in Acts 2:38,
and that the verse therefore does not support the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation.
1 Corinthians 1:17
Mr. Everett objects to my conclusion that because Paul writes that God sent him not to baptize, but to preach the
gospel, baptism must not be part of the gospel. He believes Paul's purpose in the passage is "to show the
greater importance of preaching the gospel as compared to baptizing those taught." But if baptism is part
of the gospel, I cannot see that preaching the gospel (which would include baptism) would be more important than
baptizing. The idea is self-contradictory.
He believes Jn. 6:27, "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting
life..." is a parallel instance of a "not...but" construction. He is right. But the point of Christ’s
"not…but" construction is that the former is of only temporary value while the latter is of permanent
importance. So also is the case with baptizing and preaching the gospel; baptizing is of temporary value because
it is a sign to others of the regeneration one has experienced in Christ (Ro. 6:1- 3), while the gospel
is of permanent importance because it is "the power of God unto salvation" (Ro.1:16)
Acts 22:16
This was the weakest section in my booklet. Mr. Everett has spurred me to some study that indicates some corrections.
In the booklet, I wrote that "calling on the name of the Lord" indicated the manner in which Paul was
to "wash away" his sins. I was wrong, and beg the forgiveness of any who might have been confused because
of my mistake.
The participle translated "calling on" in Acts 22:16 is in the aorist tense (roughly equivalent to the
English "simple past," though it emphasizes the punctiliar nature of the action) and therefore should
more properly be translated "having called on," granting its location in the sentence. The action designated
by "having called on" is thus not simultaneous with that contemplated in the two commands, as Mr. Everett
would have it, but prior to the giving of the command by Ananias. (It is true that the first participle,
anastas, is
also aorist. But as it precedes the two commands instead of following them, the time frame it connotes is governed
by their tense rather than its own. It therefore is properly translated into the English present tense participle,
rather than into the past as is the case with epikalesamenos .) (See Boyce M. Blackwelder, Light From the Greek New Testament,
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker House, 1958, p. 102.)
A proper translation would be, "And now what are you waiting for? Standing up, get yourself baptized and wash
away your sins, having called on His name." "Having called on His name" is taken by Ananias to be
the condition which qualified Paul for being baptized and washing away his sins.
Would this not commit me to the belief that sins are not actually washed away until after one called on
the name of Christ, namely, until one was baptized? The dilemma looks tight.
Let us recall two things. First, what truly washes away sins is the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5), not the water used
in baptism. The water symbolizes Christ's blood, but the blood itself cleanses us.
Second, the act of baptism is a symbol of the regeneration accomplished by washing, it is not the regeneration
itself. Our sins are washed away as we are regenerated (born again) in Christ. God "saved us, not because
of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal
by the Holy Spirit..." (Titus 3:5, NIV).
For a believer to be baptized is a righteous thing. But Paul tells us God did not save us because of "righteous
things we had done." If it is a righteous thing for believers to be baptized, as I am sure Mr. Everett believes,
then the act of baptism cannot be a part of the cause of their being saved.
It appears that Paul's statement in Titus 3:5 contradicts Ananias's statement in Acts 22:16, if we interpret
Ananias's statement in the manner urged by Mr. Everett. But we cannot affirm that the inerrant Word of God
contradicts itself. How can the two passages be reconciled?
The language in Titus 3:5 is straightforward: God "saved us not because of righteous things we had done."
There are no metaphors here, no symbols (except in the sense that all words are symbols). But the language
of Acts 22:16 is filled with symbolism: the word "baptism" itself, and the act, are both symbols of our
death, burial, and resurrection in Christ (Ro. 6:3-4); and "washing away sins" certainly is figurative
language, the word "washing" standing for the cancellation of sin which occurs in justification. When
we deal with two passages of Scripture which appear to contradict, if one uses straightforward, non-symbolic language
and the other symbolic language, it is wiser to interpret the symbolic by the straightforward than vice versa.
How might we interpret Acts 22:16 in light of Titus 3:5? Ananias acknowledges that Paul has already called upon
the name of the Lord, since he uses the aorist participle "having called." The way to understand this
is to see baptism as symbolizing not only our death, burial, and resurrection in Christ (Ro. 6:3-4), but also the
washing away of sins--an idea that fits the appearance of the act itself.
Ananias's command to Paul then would be for Paul to take to himself, by being baptized, the sign of the washing
away of sins. The clause "wash away your sins" would explain the meaning of the clause "get yourself
baptized" (middle voice, not active). The nature of the symbol involved in the act of baptism would thus be
explained by the clause "wash away your sins"--namely, baptism symbolizes a washing away of sins. But
if God did not save us because of righteous things we have done (Titus 3:5), this washing away of sins cannot be
caused by baptism, it can only be pictured by it.
Sins are washed away when one believes in Christ, i.e., calls on His name out of a believing heart. But
the washing away is pictured by baptism after regeneration, not before it.
Mr. Everett concludes his discussion of Acts 22:16, "Saul had to be baptized to wash away his sins and this
passage clearly demonstrates the necessity of baptism for salvation." But if that is the case, then Paul's
salvation came because of a righteous thing he did--getting baptized. In that case Titus 3:5 is false. The alternative
above is preferable.
Mr. Everett asks that I tell when I believe Saul was saved. I believe he repented and trusted Christ on the way
to Damascus, not after his encounter with Ananias. Prior to meeting the Lord on the way to Damascus, he was "breathing
out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1), but when the Lord appeared to
him and identified himself, he responded with trembling and astonishment, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to
do?" (v. 6). Instead of resisting Christ, he submitted, a clear sign that he had repented and believed in
Christ (1 Cor. 12:3). It was then that Paul "called on the name of the Lord" (which was intimated by
Ananias's use of "having called" in 22:16) and was saved.
Mr. Everett writes that if I "affirm that he was saved when he believed," namely, when Christ appeared
to him on the road to Damascus, then I "must surrender" my "argument about Saul being saved by calling
on the name of the Lord." I need do no such thing. Ananias's choice of tense for "having called"
indicates he believed Paul had previously called on Christ, and the narrative in Acts 9 shows that to be
the case.
[Previous Article] [Next
Article]
[Debate Outline]
|
