A More Extensive Response to the Hyper-Sacramentalist (Part 2)
Here are a few more citation on Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38 from “amateur linguists” who possess a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” have engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest they further embarrass themselves.”
On Matt 3:11
Leon Morris (Gospel According to Matthew, 61): “Baptism is often followed by eis, but only here with a reference to repentance. We might expect the construction to denote purpose (‘with a view to’), but this is surely not what is meant, for repentance should precede baptism. More likely, it means ‘because of.’ . . . baptism is the seal that marks repentance.”
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Leon Morris is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”
Craig Blomberg (New American Commentary: Matthew, 79): “The phrase ‘for repentance’ could suggest that one must be baptized to be saved, but this interpretation founders on New Testament teaching elsewhere (e.g., Acts 3:19; Rom 3:23-24; Eph 2:8-9). Interestingly, even Josephus recognizes this (Ant. 18.5.2) when he writes that John taught that his followers ‘must not employ [baptism] to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already cleansed.’ A venerable tradition of Baptist interpreters has seen the ‘for’ (eis) as actually meaning because here, but more recent grammatical analysis makes this unlikely. Probably the term simply should be taken as in reference to. Baptism in reference to repentance thus distinguishes John’s baptism from other religions’ ritual washings which do not symbolize turning away from sin.”
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Craig Blomberg is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself.
Robert Mounce (New International Biblical Commentary: Matthew, 24): “‘My baptism,’ he might say, ‘indicates that you have repented’.”
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Mounce is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself."
Jack Lewis (Living Word Commentary: Matthew, 61-62): “John’s baptism is described as a ‘baptism of repentance’ . . . and as for repentance (eis metanoian; Matt 3:11). The latter phrase is difficult. It cannot be argued that the baptism was designated to bring about repentance in the recipient, for repentance was a prerequisite to being baptized. On the opposite side, those who claim here that we have a ‘causal’ use of eis . . . have not been able to produce parallel cases of such a use of eis. If we may interpret Matthew from Mark’s and Luke’s phrase, then John’s baptism was with reference to, or pointed toward repentance.”
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Jack Lewis is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself."
Acts 2:38
David Williams (New International Biblical Commentary: Acts, 54): “The distinctions of number in the Greek verbs are significant in this connection. The call to repentance and baptism—the individual’s response to God’s grace—is in the singular, but the promise, you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (v. 38), is in the plural.”
Williams goes on the see this distinction in terms of community / individual; but the point is, he sees significance in the distinction in number of the verbs—a significance the hyper-sacramentalist not only denies is there, but also insists only an “amateur linguist” could see. Hence, according to the hyper-sacramentalist, David Williams is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself.
John Polhill (New American Commentary: Acts, 117): “The connection of baptism with the forgiveness of sins in v. 38 has often been a matter of controversy. A literal rendering of the verse runs: ‘Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for / on the basis of the forgiveness of your sins.’ The disputed word is the preposition eis, which could indicate purpose and thus be taken to mean that baptism is the prerequisite for the forgiveness of sins. There is ample evidence in the New Testament, however, that eis can also mean on the ground of, on the basis of, which would indicate the opposite relationship—that the forgiveness of sins is the basis, the grounds for being baptized. . . . The dominant idea in 2:38 thus seems to be repentance, with the other elements following. Repentance leadS to baptism, the forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Spirit."
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, John Polhill is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”
Robert Wall (New Interpreter’s Bible: Acts, 67-68): “Significantly, ‘repent’ is plural in form, which indicates that Peter’s demand is addressed to the entire house of Israel; the second command, ‘be baptized,’ is stipulated only of those individual Jews who convert. . . . Sharply put, Christian baptism assumes Spirit baptism in Acts and the readiness of the converted for the work of witness. . . . The principle difficulty in the history of interpretation of this text is whether Christian baptism is a condition for or a consequence of the ‘forgiveness of your sins’ and thus the reception of the ‘gift of the Holy Spirit.’ The problem turns on the causal use of the preposition eis: ‘for [eis] the forgiveness of your sins.’ However, Barrett reminds us that Luke does not use this preposition consistently, nor does he place much value on it in any case. . . . Peter’s formulation of these . . . demands therefore is not technical and in no way establishes a theological norm."
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Robert Wall is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself.
A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures, Acts 2:38): “Rather, ‘And let each one of you be baptized.’ First make a complete change of heart and life, then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place; and this in the name of Jesus. . . . {Unto the remission of your sins} My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one else in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented).”
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, A. T. Robertson is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”
Yes, I will be returning to the Galatians and Romans texts soon.
On Matt 3:11
Leon Morris (Gospel According to Matthew, 61): “Baptism is often followed by eis, but only here with a reference to repentance. We might expect the construction to denote purpose (‘with a view to’), but this is surely not what is meant, for repentance should precede baptism. More likely, it means ‘because of.’ . . . baptism is the seal that marks repentance.”
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Leon Morris is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”
Craig Blomberg (New American Commentary: Matthew, 79): “The phrase ‘for repentance’ could suggest that one must be baptized to be saved, but this interpretation founders on New Testament teaching elsewhere (e.g., Acts 3:19; Rom 3:23-24; Eph 2:8-9). Interestingly, even Josephus recognizes this (Ant. 18.5.2) when he writes that John taught that his followers ‘must not employ [baptism] to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already cleansed.’ A venerable tradition of Baptist interpreters has seen the ‘for’ (eis) as actually meaning because here, but more recent grammatical analysis makes this unlikely. Probably the term simply should be taken as in reference to. Baptism in reference to repentance thus distinguishes John’s baptism from other religions’ ritual washings which do not symbolize turning away from sin.”
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Craig Blomberg is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself.
Robert Mounce (New International Biblical Commentary: Matthew, 24): “‘My baptism,’ he might say, ‘indicates that you have repented’.”
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Mounce is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself."
Jack Lewis (Living Word Commentary: Matthew, 61-62): “John’s baptism is described as a ‘baptism of repentance’ . . . and as for repentance (eis metanoian; Matt 3:11). The latter phrase is difficult. It cannot be argued that the baptism was designated to bring about repentance in the recipient, for repentance was a prerequisite to being baptized. On the opposite side, those who claim here that we have a ‘causal’ use of eis . . . have not been able to produce parallel cases of such a use of eis. If we may interpret Matthew from Mark’s and Luke’s phrase, then John’s baptism was with reference to, or pointed toward repentance.”
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Jack Lewis is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself."
Acts 2:38
David Williams (New International Biblical Commentary: Acts, 54): “The distinctions of number in the Greek verbs are significant in this connection. The call to repentance and baptism—the individual’s response to God’s grace—is in the singular, but the promise, you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (v. 38), is in the plural.”
Williams goes on the see this distinction in terms of community / individual; but the point is, he sees significance in the distinction in number of the verbs—a significance the hyper-sacramentalist not only denies is there, but also insists only an “amateur linguist” could see. Hence, according to the hyper-sacramentalist, David Williams is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself.
John Polhill (New American Commentary: Acts, 117): “The connection of baptism with the forgiveness of sins in v. 38 has often been a matter of controversy. A literal rendering of the verse runs: ‘Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for / on the basis of the forgiveness of your sins.’ The disputed word is the preposition eis, which could indicate purpose and thus be taken to mean that baptism is the prerequisite for the forgiveness of sins. There is ample evidence in the New Testament, however, that eis can also mean on the ground of, on the basis of, which would indicate the opposite relationship—that the forgiveness of sins is the basis, the grounds for being baptized. . . . The dominant idea in 2:38 thus seems to be repentance, with the other elements following. Repentance leadS to baptism, the forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Spirit."
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, John Polhill is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”
Robert Wall (New Interpreter’s Bible: Acts, 67-68): “Significantly, ‘repent’ is plural in form, which indicates that Peter’s demand is addressed to the entire house of Israel; the second command, ‘be baptized,’ is stipulated only of those individual Jews who convert. . . . Sharply put, Christian baptism assumes Spirit baptism in Acts and the readiness of the converted for the work of witness. . . . The principle difficulty in the history of interpretation of this text is whether Christian baptism is a condition for or a consequence of the ‘forgiveness of your sins’ and thus the reception of the ‘gift of the Holy Spirit.’ The problem turns on the causal use of the preposition eis: ‘for [eis] the forgiveness of your sins.’ However, Barrett reminds us that Luke does not use this preposition consistently, nor does he place much value on it in any case. . . . Peter’s formulation of these . . . demands therefore is not technical and in no way establishes a theological norm."
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Robert Wall is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself.
A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures, Acts 2:38): “Rather, ‘And let each one of you be baptized.’ First make a complete change of heart and life, then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place; and this in the name of Jesus. . . . {Unto the remission of your sins} My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one else in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented).”
According to the hyper-sacramentalist, A. T. Robertson is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”
Yes, I will be returning to the Galatians and Romans texts soon.
posted by NA at 8:57 PM
<< Home