Matt Colver, "Baptism for Forgiveness in Acts 2:38"

http://upsaid.com/mac47

May 09 2007 A.D.

BAPTISM FOR FORGIVENESS IN ACTS 2:38

Cal Beisner is at it again. He claims that in Acts 2:38,

A careful study of the Greek grammar [Hm. How come nothing can ever be demonstrated by careless study of Greek grammar? - MC] at this point shows that it is repentance, not baptism, which is "for the remission of sins." The Greek text reads (translated):

You (plural) repent and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (the) remission of the sins of you.

This makes it clear that "remission of your [plural] sins" is the result of "you [plural] repent[ing]," not of "each one [singular] being baptized." The command to repent is given in the plural number and second person; the command to be baptized is given in the singular number and third person; the sins remitted belong to "you" in the plural number and second person. It is therefore improper to refer "remission of sins" to "baptism" as its cause, for this would mean that each one was baptized for the remission of the sins of all those present.

This is too funny by half. Let's examine the grammar and the context.

The original reads: Μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν... Now, there is no way any Greek-speaker would have read the "eis" clause ("for the forgiveness of your sins") as anything other than the purpose for which each man is to be baptized. Indeed, the only question to my mind is whether the prior command "Repent" is even included as something done "for the forgiveness of your sins". (Obviously, theologically-speaking, it is. I mean grammatically.) Grammatically, Beisner has it exactly backward. So-called "purposive eis" will be construed with whatever the most recent verb or set of verbs was. We might be able to exclude "repent," because it is farther away, and separated from the rest of the sentence by the dialogue tag ("phesi", if your MSS have it). Neither of these reasons is at all compelling, but they at least can be paralleled by other instances. It is grammatically conceivable that "repent" might not be "for the forgiveness of your sins." By contrast, we cannot even conceivably exclude "baptisthetw". Had Paul wanted to say "repent for the forgiveness of your sins, and let each of you be baptized", he would have done it. Greek prepositional phrases work pretty much like English: to put "for forgiveness" after "let each be baptized", when you mean it to go only with "repent" would be just as misleading in Greek as in English.

And no, there is nothing to motivate a "parenthesis" here. There is no problem at all with the switch from singular to plural. "Let each of you be baptized" is singular because the baptism in view is not a mass sprinkling like Moses did in Ex. 24, but a head-for-head matter. It's just good old-fashioned Second Temple Judaism at work, just as the Pharisees were upset at Jesus for letting his disciples eat with unwashed hands, and for not fasting, because they felt that each person who individually failed to do these things was thereby hindering the corporate, national, restoration from the punishment under which Israel was languishing. (Wright's "exile"). So the position Cal rejects is precisely right: "each one was baptized for the sins of all present."

To my mind, Acts 2:38 is not even primarily addressing the question of individual sins and individual forgiveness. Peter's stunning peroration in 2:36 is that "all the house of Israel" -- very emphatically corporate! -- should know that God has made Lord and Christ this Jesus "whom you (pl.) crucified."

The command to repent and be baptized is Peter's answer to his audience's question about this horrible, nation-destroying sin of Messiah-rejection ("They were cut to the heart" and asked "What shall we do?" , 2:37). They are thinking, "Oh no. This guy that our leaders executed was actually the Messiah after all. We're screwed!"

That Peter's answer is likewise historically contextualized is clear from his exhortation in 2:40 - "Be saved from this twisted generation." He doesn't tell them to look into their hearts and discover, a la Sonship, that "You're worse than you could ever imagine." Everyone seems to have a pretty "robust" conscience, to use K. Stendahl's term. The problem is not so much that everyone in the crowd is a sinner in a general sense. The problem is that Israel is suddenly revealed as a very unfortunate corporate solidarity to belong to at this particular moment in covenant history.

Peter is preaching especially to Jews here. It's certainly true that Christ saves Gentiles from the curse of Adam -- not the curse of the Torah. But here, we see further confirmation that N.T. Wright is right. Peter is talking to Israel under the curse of the covenant, about to be cut off because they did not heed the prophet like Moses; He is telling them that the covenant blessings of Deuteronomy lies on the other side of that event, for those who will join themselves (2:41 - prosetethesan, "were added") to the Israel that is already on the other side of this curse, i.e. the Church. In the logic of Peter's speech here in Acts 2, one gets baptized individually in order to belong to the corporate body that is being saved.

So in my view, Beisner is wrong about baptism in Acts 2:38, first because he doesn't read covenant-historically. He's trapped in a TR, individual-salvation mindset. The erroneous claims about Greek grammar are just an inevitable symptom of this larger, more far-reaching misunderstanding.



() Posted by Matt at 12 : 29 pm, 5/09/07