00B.33 Chapter 26. The Baptist Arrow and the Bible Arrow
XXVI. The Baptist Arrow and the Bible Arrow The pastor of the Baptist Church of Cookeville, Tennessee, who, we believe, is called "Judge Edwards" in his home community, thinks that a correct analysis of the language of Acts 2:38 will show that the Baptist arrow and the Bible arrow point in the same direction. He undertakes to do what the best scholars among the Baptists long ago said could not be done. The only way the Baptist arrow can ever be made to point in the same direction that is indicated by the Bible arrow is to turn it around. But we are glad to let the judge be heard through our pages, and he did not need to apologize for the criticism of our analysis. An honest, a fair, and a brotherly investigation of any position is a mark of a sincerity and of an interest in the truth that must not be despised.
Here we give in full the criticism offered by our Baptist brother, but we shall reserve the beginning of our reply till next week. Read carefully what he says: Your "Denominational Baptism (No. 4)" in the Gospel Advocate of March 1 attempts to show that in water baptism "the Baptist arrow points . . . west, the Bible arrow points . . . east." In the course of your remarks you say: "Of course an analytical study of the passage (Acts 2:38) will show that repentance and baptism are connected by a coordinate conjunction, and that both are for the same purpose."
I rather think you take too much for granted in your analysis. As a matter "of course," a correct analysis might show that the Baptist arrow and the Bible arrow both point in the same direction. True, if your analysis were correct, in water baptism the arrow might point ahead to remission; but if it can be demonstrated that your analysis is wrong, then will you not have to turn the arrow around and let it point backward to remission, or find a better argument for making it point forward to remission? Your analysis is wrong in that you attempt to make the conjunction "and" join the verbs "repent" and "be baptized" together as a compound predicate of a simple sentence; whereas the conjunction "and" here connects two independent clauses, thereby making a compound sentence.
Now let me demonstrate the truth of this analysis. By referring to the Greek you will discover that the verb "repent" (Greek, "metanoesate") is in the plural number, second person, while the verb "be baptized" (Greek, "baptistheto") is in the singular number, third person. Thus you see they do not agree in number and person. But the universal rule is: "A verb agrees with its subject nominative in number and person." ("Composition and Grammar," by Sanford, Brown, and Smith, p. 157.) Goodwin’s Greek Grammar gives the rule as follows: "A verb agrees with its subject nominative in number and person." (Section 899.) You can see that these two verbs could not take the same subject without violating this universal rule of grammar, both in English and in Greek. Certainly a subject that would agree with "repent" in person and number would necessarily isagree with "be baptized" in person and number. Therefore, the two verbs, "repent" and "be baptized," must each have an independent subject. But what is the subject of the verb "repent"? The Greek makes it plain that the subject of "repent" is "ye" (understood), pronoun in plural number, second person. But what is the subject of the verb "be baptized"? The subject of "be baptized" is the word "one," indefinite pronoun, singular number, third person. Thus we have two independent clauses—first clause, "repent (ye)"; second clause, "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." These two independent clauses are connected by the coordinate conjunction "and," thus making a compound sentence, instead of a single sentence with a compound predicate, according to your analysis. But to go a little further with the analysis, the subject "one" of the second independent clause is modified by the adjective "every" and by the prepositional phrase "of you"; while the verb "be baptized" is modified by the double prepositional phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" and by the double prepositional phrase "for the remission of sins." Thus you may readily see that since these prepositional phrases modify the verb "be baptized" of the second independent clause, and do not modify the verb "repent" of the first independent clause, your conclusion that "both are for the same purpose" is bound to be wrong. But since writing the foregoing, I have received your "Denominational Baptism (No. 5)," in which you present a diagram of Acts 2:38. I am sure you have never taken the trouble of scrutinizing this diagram, or you would not have presented it as you have. Here you have the very inconsistent and rather ludicrous setup of the adjective "every" modifying the plural pronoun "ye," and using "one" as an adjective you have "one" modifying "ye." For example, "every ye of you"; or, still worse, "every one ye of you." Both of these words used as adjectives always modify a singular noun or pronoun, never a plural noun or pronoun. For example, you would not say "every men," or "every persons," or "every houses." Neither would you say "one men," or "one persons," or "one houses." But that is not all. You have a plural subject of a compound predicate, one part of which is plural, the other part singular. To make it perfectly clear, you would not say "men repent and is baptized." Why? Because the subject is plural, and the second part of the compound predicate is singular. Now, that is exactly the error you have made in your diagram—that is, you have a plural subject of a compound predicate, with the second part of the predicate in the singular number. In the face of these plain inconsistencies of analysis, I think you will want to take back your diagram and suggest to your young preacher brethren something better because any theory or practice that depends upon such an incorrect analysis of the Scripture is a "good" theory or practice to discard. But since I have gone thus far, may I suggest still another exercise in analysis? For example, suppose you analyze and compare the following:
Acts 2:38 : "be baptized . . . eis . . . remission."
Matthew 3:11 : "baptize . . . eis repentance."
Now, unless the Holy Spirit was wholly off in grammar, a correct analysis or comparison of these two verses of Scripture will reveal beyond a doubt that the Baptist and the Bible arrows point in the same direction in water baptism—that is, backward to remission of sins already received before baptism.
You will note that the verbs of these two statements, "be baptized" and "baptize," are derivatives of the same word, "baptidzo." Hence, they both refer to the same act or rite. You will also note that these two verbs are each modified with a prepositional phrase having identically the same preposition, "eis." A preposition is a word that shows the relation between the word or words modified and the object of the preposition. The only real difference between the expression in Acts 2:38 and the expression in Matthew 3:11 is not in the verbs modified and not in the prepositions, but in the objects of the prepositional phrases. The object of the phrase in Acts 2:38 is "remission," while the object of the phrase in Matthew 3:11 is "repentance." But since the preposition which shows the relation is identically the same in both, it necessarily follows that the relation between the act of baptism and remission is the same as the relation between baptism and repentance. But what is the relation between baptism and repentance? You yourself say—in fact, we are agreed—that repentance precedes or goes before the act of water baptism, and that in baptism the arrow points backward to repentance. Is that not true? But if true, then remission must also precede or go before the act of baptism, and in the act of baptism the arrow must point backward to remission. Why? Simply because it is very plain that the relation between baptism and repentance is exactly the same as the relation between baptism and remission. Hence, the Baptist and the Bible arrows point in the same direction in baptism.
I have written with the utmost good feeling, and with no purpose other than a friendly exchange of thought for truth’s sake. I always enjoy reading after you. In fact, on the strength of your very fine review of K. C. Moser’s book, "The Way of Salvation," I bought the book and enjoyed it very much indeed.
Sincerely yours, The Baptist Arrow and the Bible Arrow REPLY TO LAST WEEK’S BAPTIST LETTER The first error our Baptist brother makes is in going into the Greek to show that an analysis of an English sentence is wrong. He will surely know that this is not correct when it is brought to his attention. The analysis which he criticizes was of the English sentence as it is found in the American Standard Revised Version. It reads thus: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." Now, he says, "ye"—pronoun, second person plural—is the subject of "repent," and that "one"—pronoun, third person singular —is the subject of "be baptized." How does he argue for this? Oh, he says the verb "repent" is plural, and must, therefore, of course, have a plural subject. The verb "be baptized" is singular, and must have a singular subject. But how did he learn that these verbs are plural and singular? Is there any difference in the English verb "repent" when the subject is plural and when it is singular? Of course not. You may say: "the man repented," "the men repented." The verb is the same. Likewise the English verb "baptize" is the same when the subject is singular and when it is plural. Thus, "he will be baptized today," "they will be baptized tomorrow." The verb is the same in both sentences. When we use an auxiliary verb with "baptize," a difference is noted; as, "he was baptized," "they were baptized." But in the passage we are studying this tense is not used, and the form of the verb, either verb, may be either singular or plural.
But, our brother will say, in the Greek the verbs have different forms or endings when singular and when plural. Very true, but we were analyzing and diagraming an English sentence. Our brother must know that in the Greek there is no "ye" and no "one" in the sentence. They are pulled out of the verbs by the translators, but they do not inhere in the English verbs, for we have seen that both "repent" and "be baptized" may be either singular or plural. Does this not show the error in going into the Greek to criticize an English sentence? In the judge’s criticism of the diagram which was published in our issue of March 8, 1934, he shows even more confusion. He says we there made the words "every" and "one" modify "ye," but one glance at the diagram will show anyone that he is in error there. The diagram made those words modify "person" (understood). Then he continues his singular and plural verb refrain, which he had to leam from the Greek, since the English verbs may be either singular or plural. But we may leave out all the technicalities of grammar and the grams and scruples of philology, and the sentence is so plain that a person who docs not know the parts of speech cannot misunderstand it. Our analysis was not intended to make the meaning clear, for nothing could make it any clearer than it is in just the language the Holy Spirit uttered. The analysis was used to show the error of the Baptists’ attempted explanation. It takes an expert Baptist quibbler to enable even an illiterate man to misunderstand this passage.
Peter has charged this multitude with the crime of crucifying an innocent man, and tells them that God has now made that "same Jesus . . . both Lord and Christ." What effect did this have upon them? They were "pricked in their heart," and cried out to Peter and the others: "Brethren, what shall we do?" Do for what? Why, to escape this guilt, to be released from this sin, of course. What did Peter tell them to do to escape this sin? He told them to do two things. What were they? (1) Repent and (2) be baptized. What for? Why were they told to do anything? To be released or forgiven or to escape their sins, we repeat. Hence, the apostle told them, "Repent ye, and be baptized . . . unto the remission of your sins." But were the same persons told to be baptized who were told to repent? Of course. Then the same individuals were to do both these things, and they were the subjects of repentance and baptism, regardless of what words stand as the grammatical subject. But how many of them were told to repent? All of them—"ye," plural, says our brother. Well, how many were told to be baptized? "One," singular, says the judge. What? Will he say that Peter told all of them to repent and only one of them to be baptized? No, he says, "every" modifies "one"; hence, he told "every one" of them to be baptized. Every one of whom? Why, every one of those who had asked what to do. Then if all of them were told to repent and every one o f them was told to be baptized, what is the difference in the subjects of repentance and baptism? In fact, none at all. Considering the grammar, they are collectively told to repent, then they are distributed by the words "every one of you" and told to be baptized, which makes this all the more emphatic.
Since the judge has read one book on our recommendation, we should like to recommend a few more to him. Let him read what his own scholars say on Acts 2:38. He should read Hackett, Hovey, Harkness, Broadus, and Wilmarth. If he will send twenty-five cents to the Gospel Advocate office and get what Doctor Wilmarth said in the Baptist Quarterly of 1877, which was put into tract form by J. W. Shepherd in 1908, he will have one of the best treatments of this subject that was ever written. In his "Commentary on Acts," Hackett says:
Eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28; Luke 3:3), we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.
Wilmarth says: This interpretation compels us either to do violence to the construction or to throw the argument or course of thought in the context into complete confusion. Indeed, we can hardly escape the latter alternative, even if we choose the former.
(a) For those who contended for the interpretation "on account of remission" will hardly be willing to admit that Peter said "repent" as well as "be baptized on account of remission of sins." This is too great an inversion of natural sequence. Yet to escape it we must violently dissever "repent" and "be baptized," and deny that eis expresses the relation of metanoesate as well as of baptistheto to aphesin hamartion. But the natural construction connects the latter with both the preceding verbs. It "enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other," as Hackett says. But Judge Edwards "violently dissevers" the verbs not only in his analysis, but in his supposed parallel of Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:38. He has: Be baptized . . . eis . . . remission.
Baptize . . . eis repentance.
Why does he tear the language of the Holy Spirit apart? Why did he not put both the verbs in his first member of the parallel? Thus:
Repent ye, and be baptized . . . eis . . . remission.
Baptize . . . eis repentance. But we will give attention to this argument next week. The Baptist Arrow and the Bible Arrow In the letter from Judge Edwards, which we published on June 14, he gives us what he thinks is a parallel between Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:38. He states it in the following manner:
Acts 2:38 : "be baptized . . . eis . . . remission."
Matthew 3:11 : "baptize . . . eis repentance."
He says that the preposition eis here used in both sentences shows that baptism has the same relationship to remission that it has to repentance; and since we are agreed that repentance must precede baptism, eis here points back to that repentance. It should read, therefore, "I indeed baptize you because of, or on account of, repentance." Then, since remission sustains the same relation to baptism that repentance does, baptism is because of remission of sins! And the arrows are going in the same direction, says the judge, with an air of finality. But we showed last week that in attempting to make this parallel he used only one part of the sentence in Acts. He ignores the rules of grammar and "violently dissevers" two verbs that are joined by a coordinate conjunction, and also defies the decision of all scholars—including Baptist scholars—who say that "repent ye, and be baptized . . . unto the remission of your sins" means that both verbs "repent" and "be baptized" sustain the same relation to remission. Hence, if baptism is "on account of" remission, so also is repentance. This is more than any Baptist can admit. That is why men of good intelligence and of fair learning will stultify their intelligence, sacrifice their learning, and make a handmaiden of ignorance when they come to deal with Acts 2:38. That passage ruins Baptist doctrine world without end. Better turn your arrow around. Brother Baptist. The Greek preposition eis never has the meaning of because of.It never looks backward; it always looks forward. It denotes primarily into the space within, and its general English equivalent is into. It signifies the purpose or end in view. In Matthew 3:11 it does seem to have the meaning of because of. but scholars say it cannot have that meaning even there. We shall take up that passage later.
If Judge Edwards wanted to cite a real parallel, why did he not take the two passages that contain exactly the same prepositional phrase? Thus:
Matthew 26:28 : "This is my blood . . . shed . . . eis the remission of sins."
Acts 2:38 : "Repent ye, and be baptized . . . eis . . . remission of your sins." The phraseology is not only precisely the same in English, but it is also exactly verbatim in the Greek—eis aphesin hamartion. Will any Baptist claim that Christ shed his blood because o f remission of sins—because sins had already been remitted—and, therefore, the arrow in this case points back to a fact already accomplished? No, even Baptists let the arrow point in the right direction here. Then why do they turn it around in the parallel passage— Acts 2:38? They have it to do or give up their doctrine on the purpose of baptism, and—"great is Diana," you know. But since eis always points forward or indicates purpose or end in view, how can baptism be unto (eis) repentance, as in Matthew 3:11? Were people baptized in order to repentance? No, but they were baptized into repentance—that is, into a condition or state of life required by repentance— into a new life, here by metonymy called "repentance."
Before we leave this passage we will let Judge Edward’s own brother, J. W. Wilmarth, tell us what eis means here. Here is his comment:
John also said (Matthew 3:11): "I indeed baptize you in water unto [eis] repentance." This has been misunderstood. Eis does not here change its ground meaning, is not equivalent to on account of. John’s baptism looked to the future, to the near approach of Messiah, whose people must be prepared for him. Those baptized by John were indeed required to repent, but also to stand pledged unto repentance, thenceforward to have a changed heart and life, so as to be in a state of readiness for Messiah’s coming. So, Olshausen says that John’s baptism "aimed at awakening repentance"; only his remark is too unqualified, present as well as prospective repentance being required. (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 3:7-8.) This explains the phrase eis metanoian—unto repentance. In harmony with this also was John’s teaching of faith. "John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on him who should come after him; that is, on Jesus." (Acts 19:4.) After Christ’s ascension we meet no more with the phrase baptized unto repentance, because baptism now acknowledges the Messiah already come, and faith and repentance, as conditions of remission, are conceived of as wholly in the present. But the phrase baptized unto remission remains—is used by Peter, Acts 2:38. Those who render eis in Matthew 3:11 on account of furnish a notable instance of missing an important idea through failure to understand the force of the Greek preposition.
If all Baptists would read what their real scholars say, they would never attempt to make eis mean because of or in consequence of.The preposition dia has that meaning; and if the inspired writer had intended to convey that idea, he would have used dia instead of eis in Matthew 3:11; Matthew 12:41. But suppose we should grant for the sake of argument that eis does sometimes point backward—does sometimes mean because of or on account of—and that Matthew 3:11; Matthew 12:41 are examples of that use or meaning of the word, then what have the Baptists gained? No living man will say that it always means because of; then how would we determine when it means because o f and when it means into, in order to, and for the purpose of? Clearly we would have to determine this by each text in which the preposition occurs and the context. Then if it does mean because of in Matthew 3:11, that does not come within a million miles of proving that it means that in Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28. And that is the point Baptists try to make! Surely any sane person can see their failure here. As it has been repeatedly shown, eis could not mean because of in Acts 2:38, for that would make Peter tell the people to repent because o f remission of sins when they were crying out to know what to do in order to escape the guilt of their sins. If a hundred passages could be cited where eis has the meaning of because of, that would still not prove it has that meaning in Acts 2:38. As a plain matter of honesty and scholarship, we are always glad to show what eis means in Matthew 3:11; Matthew 12:41, or any other passage; but we are not under any obligation, and much less any necessity, to do so in order to defend the teaching of Acts 2:38. We may let it mean anything our opponents want it to mean in those passages, and still they must come to Acts 2:38 and deal with it as an individual text. Eis is used nine times in the second chapter of Acts, and each time it points forward. The context as well as the text, therefore, shows its meaning in the passage that is the nightmare to Baptists.
Remember, beloved, eis never means because of —never points backward. Such an idea is foreign to the word. The Baptist arrow and the Bible arrow still point in opposite directions on baptism despite Judge Edwards’ protest.