00B.27 Chapter 20--Review of a Baptist Exegete

XX. A Review of a Baptist Exegete The following article was clipped from the Baptist and Reflector by a Baptist reader and sent to a disciple of Christ for the purpose of convincing him. This disciple sent the clipping to me with the request that I review it. The Baptist and Reflector had copied the article from the Baptist Stand­ard. W. T. Rouse is the author of the article.

There is nothing at all unusual about this article except that the writer is honest enough to admit that the ordinary meaning of the preposition eis is "in order to." This is not unusual for Baptist scholars, such as Wilmarth, Hackett, and others, who give it the meaning of "in order to" even in Acts 2:38, but it is very unusual for a Baptist contro­versialist to make this admission. But the Baptists evidently think this a very strong article, as it was published in two of their leading papers. We therefore give space to a review of this article, and quote the article in full. AN EXPLANATION OF Acts 2:38

Perhaps there is not another verse of Scripture which has occa­sioned more controversy than this one verse. Beginning in the sec­ond century, in the passing centuries, many books have been written as the controversy lias been in progress. Dr. B. H. Carroll, in his volume on "The Acts," devotes seven chapters to a discussion of the second chapter, and two of these chapters are given over to the dis­cussion of this one verse. The reader can well see my difficulty in compressing into one brief article a proper explanation of this much- controverted portion of Scripture. As we proceed with the study several things will be involved. I mention the following:

Two SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY So significant are the truths involved in this discussion that two systems of theology, differing fundamentally in their import, emerge from the discussion. For the purpose of this study, I will divide them into what we may call the first and the second system. The first system holds to the following summary of principles: the plan of salvation has been, is, and shall remain, one; the requirements of salvation are spiritual; they are repentance toward God, faith in or toward the Lord Jesus Christ; salvation before the church; the blood before the water. The second theory contends that salva­tion is by ordinances; that it is spiritual; that it is sacerdotal; that consequently baptismal regeneration is true; that baptism, like re­pentance and faith, are conditions of salvation and remission of sins. A CORRECT TRANSLATION A correct translation is an important part of a proper under­standing of the Scriptures. It is unfortunate that the preposition eis in the verse is translated "for" in the King James Version of the Bible. Without any further comment in this immediate connection, I offer the following translation of Acts 2:38 : "Repent ye and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ with reference to the remission of sins."

SOMETHING TO REMEMBER

It is well for us to remember that words in all languages have what is known as a common or ordinary meaning; that they also have what is known as a frequent meaning; and, last of all, they have what is known as a rare meaning. Applying this principle to the Greek preposition eis involved in this exegesis, it is freely admitted that the ordinary meaning of the word is "in order to"; but it has also a frequent meaning of "unto," "with reference to," "in token of," "concerning"; and, last of all, it has a rare meaning of "because of." We do well to keep these three very evident mean­ings in mind as we proceed.

SOME RULES OF INTERPRETATION

Before going on to establish our contention as to the proper mean­ing of this verse, let me call attention to some rules of interpretation. These will enable us to determine when to give a word its frequent or rare meaning instead of its ordinary meaning. Here are the prin­ciples: first, the bearing of the local context; second, the bearing of the general context (by which I mean the tenor of the entire canon of Scripture); third, the nature of congruity of things. Keeping in mind all that has gone before, we are now ready to proceed with our problem. THE MILK IN THE COCONUT

It will be seen from what has gone before that our problem is to determine the proper meaning of the preposition eis in the verse of Scripture under consideration. Our problem, therefore, involves a consideration of the entire New Testament usage of the verb baptizo and its noun, when followed by the preposition eis, with the accusative for its object.

Let us consider a few of the Scriptures where the verb baptizo is followed by the preposition eis with the accusative. First of all, we come to Matthew 3:11 : "I indeed baptize you in water eis repent­ance." Now, shall we translate it, "I baptize you ... in order to repentance"? Here it is very evident that the preposition eis has not its ordinary, common meaning, "in order to," nor its rare mean­ing, "because of," but its frequent meaning, "with reference to," "with respect to." Tyndale translated it, "in token of repentance." The context shows that John not only required repentance, but the fruits of repentance, before he would baptize anyone.

Certainly Matthew 3:11 has an important bearing upon Acts 2:38. But let us consider Matthew 12:41 : "They repented eis the preaching of Jonah." Evidently the Ninevites did not repent "in order to the preaching" of Jonah, the ordinary meaning of the word, nor "with reference to" his preaching (the frequent meaning), but because of the preaching of Jonah (the real meaning of the word).

Passing by Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, where eis assuredly has its frequent meaning, "unto," "with reference to," we have in the second chapter of the Acts itself a most convincing argument in regard to the proper meaning of eis in this thirty-eighth verse. Peter is preaching and says in Acts 2:25, "For David saith eis him" —that is, Christ. Now, we must give the preposition eis in this connection, not its common, ordinary meaning, "in order to," nor its rare meaning, "because of," but its frequent meaning, "concern­ing," "with respect to," "with reference to." What is to hinder us, therefore, from giving eis the same meaning in verse 38? It is inescapable that the proper translation should be, "Repent ye and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ with refer­ence to, or with respect to, the remission of sins." We have seen that you cannot always translate eis with its common or ordinary meaning of "in order to," and certainly in this case the general context, which is the general tenor of the canon of the Scriptures, requires that we give it the frequent meaning of "with reference to."

I am conscious of the fact that I have compassed a great deal of material in this brief article; but those who are inclined to go more fully into the discussion or study will find plenty of material at hand for further investigation. The author complained that he could not give a com­plete exegesis of Acts 2:38 in one article; but if he had given all his space to that text or even to the texts in which eis occurs instead of using it for irrelevant matter, he would have had more space. His two systems of theology have nothing to do with what a passage of Scripture means un­less he is afraid his readers would see the real import of the passage, and he hoped to frighten them away from it by presenting a specter or erecting a scarecrow right in the beginning. Such methods are not worthy of a scholar or of any man who assumes to be a commentator or an exegete. Moreover, he misrepresents thousands of good people and fearfully distorts the truth when he makes the contention that "baptism, like repentance and faith, are conditions of salvation and remission of sins," equal to "baptismal regen­eration," "salvation by ordinances," etc. In this he handles the truth more carelessly than he does his grammar, and this is saying a great deal. Notice the clause just quoted. Leave out the expression "like repentance and faith," and we have "baptism ... are conditions of salvation." But we could overlook his errors in grammar if he had mani­fested a spirit of fairness in dealing with his opponents and with the text that he claimed to explain. The Roman Catholic Church may teach "baptismal re­generation," "salvation by ordinances," "by ritual," "that it is sacerdotal," etc., but no Protestants believe any of those things. But there are many Protestants, among them some Baptists, who believe that baptism is one of the conditions upon which the Lord promises remission of sins. Salvation is of the Lord; it is by grace through faith; but faith is not faith—is dead—until it is expressed by an overt act. Thus we are made free from sin by obeying the form of doctrine (Romans 6:17), by obeying the truth (1 Peter 1:22). And baptism is the one physical act in the whole process of becoming a Christian. It expresses the inward decision and desire. It evinces the submission and surrender of the soul. It symbolizes the death to sin by its form, a burial. The author of the article under review defines the Greek preposition eis, giving us its ordinary meaning, its frequent meaning, and its rare meaning. He is right in all of this, except his "rare meaning" is just so rare that it does not exist. Eis does not mean "because of." It is never used in that sense. It always looks forward and not back­ward. It expresses motion forward and is most frequently translated by "to," "toward," "unto," or "into." Its radical meaning is movement from a place without to a place within. Hence, into is its primary and its ordinary meaning. When we translate it by the words "in order to," the idea is "in order to" get into a place or state. Then the word has such rare meanings as "concerning," "with reference to," etc. It is also sometimes translated by "at," "on," "upon," "among," "in," and "for." But it never means "because of." Our author, however, cites one passage where he says the word has the meaning of "because of’; and having told us that this is a rare meaning, he now contradicts himself and tells us in a parenthesis that this is "the real meaning o f the word." The passage he cites says that the people "re­pented at [eis] the preaching of Jonah." He thinks this must mean that they repented because of the preaching of Jonah. But it means that they repented into the preaching of Jonah —that is, into that state or condition required by the preach­ing of Jonah. Our author says: "Let us consider a few of the Scrip­tures where the verb baptizo is followed by the preposition eis with the accusative." He then refers to only one such Scripture, and that one stands alone. As this is an unusual passage—no other like it—he prefers to cite it to illustrate the use of eis instead of citing the dozens of passages where eis is used in its ordinary, undeniable sense of "into," "in order to." But even the passage he cites does not help his cause. Even there eis means "in order to." Before we examine that passage, let us do just what he proposed to do, but he did not do—namely, consider a few Scriptures where baptizo and eis are used together.

• "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for [eis] the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4.)

• "And he came into all the country about Jordan, preach­ing the baptism of repentance for [eis] the remission of sins." (Luke 3:3.)

• "When they heard this, they were baptized in [eis] the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:5.)

• "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into [eis] Jesus Christ were baptized into [eis] his death?" (Romans 6:3.)

• "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into [eis] one body." (1 Corinthians 12:13.)

• "For as many of you as have been baptized into [eis] Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:27.)

Now, in the light of these passages, his second rule of interpretation, let us turn back and examine the one pas­sage cited by our author—Matthew 3:11. John said: "I indeed baptized you in water unto [ eis J repentance." He says that eis in this passage does not mean either "in order to" or "because of," but "with reference to" or "with respect to." But any reader who thinks at all will see that such a trans­lation would be very doubtful and indefinite. Did John baptize "with reference to" a repentance that had already taken place or "with reference to" a repentance yet to take place? If the former, then "with reference to" has the meaning of "because of"; and if the latter, it has the meaning of "in order to." It is certain John required repentance be­fore he would baptize anyone. Then how did he baptize unto (eis) repentance?

Weymouth translates it thus: "I indeed am baptizing you in water on a profession of repentance." And then he adds this footnote: "Literally ’into’ (that changed state or con­dition), or ’unto’ (to teach the absolute necessity of)." The Twentieth Century New Testament renders it: "I indeed baptize you ... to teach repentance." So these scholars tell us that eis has the meaning of "into" or "in order to" even in this passage. We do not have to give it a meaning here that it never has in order to understand this passage.

We have followed our author through all this cir­cumlocution, and we are now ready to take up the passage he was endeavoring to explain, the passage that haunts and terrifies him—Acts 2:38. He says that we find eis used in the twenty-fifth verse of Acts 2, and there it is translated "concerning." "For David speaketh eis him." Here he says it cannot mean "in order to" and must mean "with reference to." Why not, then, say it means "with reference to" in verse 38? But if he will read his Greek Testament he will find that eis is used some nine or ten times in this chapter, and it means "concerning" only one time. In verse 20, Peter says: "The sun shall be turned into [eis] darkness, and the moon into [eis] blood." Then in verse 34 (this is much nearer verse 38 than the one our author cited), Peter says: "David is not ascended into [eis[ the heavens." Now, if the use of the word in the context has anything to do with its meaning in the text, we will have to translate it "into" in verse 38. His first rule applies here. But suppose we allow our author to give eis the meaning "with reference to" in verse 38, and then what does the passage mean? "Repent ye, and be baptized with reference to remission of sins." Who can tell what that means? Does it mean "with reference to" remission that they would receive after being baptized, or does it mean "with reference to" remission that they had already received? Any man who knows anything at all about grammar knows that they were to repent and be baptized both for the same purpose. The two verbs are connected and both are looking to the same end. Therefore, if they were to be baptized "with reference to" remission already obtained, they were also to repent with reference to remission already received. Hence they were saved before they repented. Our author is very careless in both his logic and his language. His effort is a failure even from a Baptist view­point. Dr. Hackett, a Baptist scholar, wrote a commentary on the Acts which is well known and has been widely used. He translates the phrase in question, i n order t o the for­giveness of sins. He refers to Matthew 26:28 (blood shed for [eis] remission) and also to Luke 3:3 (the baptism of repentance for |eis| remission) as passages illustrating the meaning and construction here. He adds: "We connect naturally the words for remission of sins with both the pre­ceding verbs (repent and be baptized). This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, and not one part of it to the exclusion of the other."

Many other Baptist scholars could be quoted, but this will suffice for the present purpose. If the Baptist papers would give their readers what their own scholars have said in explanation of these troublesome texts instead of what some quibbler says, the trouble would soon all be gone— but so would many of the Baptists. According to our author’s first rule of interpretation, the context, he loses his contention. According to his second rule, the entire canon of Scripture, he most certainly loses his argument on this passage. If we allow him his translation, no one could tell whether it favors his contention or the one he is oppos­ing. And if we allow his own scholars to speak, they not only refute his claim, but they do not even consider it worthy of notice. It must be exasperating to have a doctrine that so rudely clashes with the plain statements of God’s word.