Q & A with Dr. Warren Vanhetloo
Compiled from Dr. Warren VanHetloo’s “Cogitations,” October, 2010.
Question
Dr. Van, I have a question about the origin of Baptism. I’ve always been taught it pictured the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. But according to Matthew 3, John was baptizing before Jesus died, even before he had even met Jesus. It then appears that believers (Jews?) displayed their faith in God by getting baptized. Any conjecture on why John seemed to come up with this idea at a time when it doesn’t mean what it means today?
Answer
No need for conjecture, there is enough in Scripture. There are several answers, and all are important.
|
First, God chose John to introduce something entirely new and different from the nation-centered dispensation of the Old Testament era. “The kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). John was sent to bear advance witness of a once-for-all-time revelation of the Light which lights every man who enters this world (John 1:3-9). Second, his water immersion was intended to prepare for a spiritual immersion to follow shortly (John 1:25-27): “I immerse with water, but…the same is He who immerses with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 33).
It is important to emphasize that God called and sent John to proclaim the greater work about to be revealed. His ministry had been predicted in the OT: “As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send My messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight” (Mark 1:2-3, Mal 3:1, Isa 40:3). Thus, John immersed in the wilderness and preached the immersion of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3).
Judaism had known ceremonial sprinklings and some forms of soaking and self-immersion, but prior to John there is no record of an immerser. Repentance was an inner thing. Immersion was an individual’s outward declaration of an inner change. Immersion gave a vague picture of drowning, of death, and as well of a coming forth to a changed life. The meaning of the symbolism was perhaps not clear until after the death and resurrection of Jesus. God chose the mode, not John. God used it as a picture which became more clear after what it portrayed became history.
Question
Dear Dr. Van, I am somewhat confused by your statement that “opposing a bully is a civil matter, not a religious.” Since when are Christians supposed to make a distinction between the two? Is not everything we do “religious,” in that our entire lifestyle should be conformed to the leadership of Christ? Perhaps I have misunderstood you; if so, I apologize. But I strongly suggest that we not compartmentalize the Christian life into “religious” and “civil” and have different standards for each.
Answer
Be subject to principalities and powers, obey magistrates, be ready to every good work (Titus 3:1).
When I typed that item, I considered putting a verse in parenthesis but did not. It is sure to get more attention this way, and so it might be that God thought it better to have greater attention drown to it. “Jesus said to them, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21, Mark 12:17).
My answer to “Since when?” is, “At least since Jesus so clearly taught the two separate areas of responsibility.” Also, it seems obvious to me that all through the OT period God taught that believers have primary responsibility to their Creator and secondary obligations to fellowmen. Jesus clearly paid taxes to the Roman government. He and others did not hesitate to call to account rulers who had disobeyed the standards of morality and conduct expected by God. Separation of church and state was not first developed in the American colonies.
Christians make a distinction between the two (religious vs. civil) because God does. The command “render” (not merely a suggestion) surely indicates that we are to fulfill our civic responsibilities toward civil authorities. These are not the same as what God instructs believers to do in relation to their leaders in a local church. The two are kept distinct, and God’s commands for us are clear for each. We all are citizens or subjects of a nation. We consider that such persons are equal in many ways and that all have privileges and responsibilities. If we are believers, we also have instructions and responsibilities in relation to other believers. We should not ignore civic obligations.
For different relationships of our civil life, God gives a believer specific instruction. Standards for wives (Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18) do not apply to the unmarried. What God expects of husbands in the civil realm has been the same since before the fall (Eph. 5:25-33, Col. 3:19). God expects those in a family relationship to act differently (Eph. 6:1-4, Col. 3:20-12). Servants have a separate status (Eph. 6:5-8, Col. 3:22, Titus 2:9-10), as do masters (Eph. 6:9, Col 4:1). We do not compartmentalize different areas of life in this fashion; God did. Standards are different for different realms.
Note especially: “I exhort therefore that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Tim. 2:1-2). God may answer those prayers in many ways, but I doubt that that means that we are to aid or encourage those who would deprive us of an undisturbed existence. I expect that God would want us to do (speak, vote, even take up arms) what is consistent with what we ask Him to accomplish.
Question
Dr. Van, I am currently reading through the minor prophets in my personal devotions and find I am puzzled by Bible Chronology. In Haggai, God exhorts the Jews to rebuild the temple. But the command to rebuild the temple seems to be given by Cyrus way back “earlier” in Chronicles and Ezra. A chart in one of my Bible study books shows that the events in Ezra actually happened after Haggai. Could you please give your thoughts on how Bible chronology fits together and how to factor it into one’s study? It is so ingrained in me that most books are strictly chronologically arranged (like history books, novels, etc.) that I keep making the same assumption about the Bible. Thanks.
Answer
Scripture is given by inspiration of God…that the man of God may be mature, complete in all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Biblical chronology is confusing in part because so many “authorities” speak authoritatively without telling the reader that there is another view of authorship and chronology. Books and charts often include just one set of results without telling the reader about the “other” view.
Roughly, the two sets of views are the ones by those who accept the inspiration of Scripture and the ones by others who think of the Bible as only a human product. A quick clue to differentiate the two is the date used for the Exodus from Egypt: 1446 for literalists against 1200s from the reconstructionists. Those using the later date crowd together and mix up much that should not be confused. It is best to use reliable charts and explanations. In my Zondervan NASB Study Bible, I have a clear chart at the beginning and discussion at each book head.
The ancients often connected events and completed telling of a matter (which thus happened later) and then returned to the narration. They seemed to concentrate on God’s prophecies and fulfillment of those more than on chronological sequence. It is admittedly confusing at times, but seeming conflicts are being worked out and becoming more established. Using a dependable chart and introductions to the various books will be of great help.
Building and rebuilding the temple were not six-month projects. Although much of the historic tent of the tabernacle did not survive, the service and much of the detail was continued in Jerusalem, and the “open air” meetings were called God’s house. David wanted to build a sturdy reliable structure, but God assigned that project to Solomon. The “house” that had been in a tent and then in open air finally had a stone structure. Rebuilding of the temple (which is what you’re studying) took stages. Once again, God’s house was open air with much of the ritual restored but no solid building. Rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem was the first important project, and safeguarded temple activity. During reconstruction, opposition disrupted work such that work was done for a while and then delayed for a period.
When scrolls were assembled into a definite sequence, the grouping was literary (law, history, poetry, prophecy) and also by length (shorter combined). Don’t be disappointed if you don’t keep all the chronology straight the first time through. Refer often to charts and summaries. If dates seem to conflict, let them rest. God will clear them up, perhaps in your lifetime. God’s work with people is much more important than people’s work with stone and clay.
Warren Vanhetloo Bio
Warren Vanhetloo has AB, BD, ThM., ThD, and DD degrees. He served three pastorates in Michigan, taught 20 years at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN), taught 23 years at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA), and is listed as adjunct faculty at Calvary. Retired, he lives in Holland, Michigan. Since the death of his wife (and at the urging of fellow faculty and former students) he sends an email publication called “Cogitations” to those who request it.
- 15 views
eis = for (one of many possible translations which will vary from context to context)
for = because of (one of multiple possible meanings which will vary from context to context)
Despite writing the words yourself, you still will not admit the grammatical possibility that eis can mean for and for often means because of. Instead you confuse the matter by reaching back to John the Baptist, certainly not practicing the same NT ordinance found in Acts 22:38.
Now you are even beginning to contradict yourself.
Post 12
Chip Van Emmerik wrote: What do you see the baptism doing here?Post 23
Jack Hampton wrote: Chip, I have already said that it was to send away sins.
Jack Hampton wrote: Please get you facts straight. I am not saying anything about baptismal washing. I am saying that those who submitted to the rite of water baptism had their sins taken away. The water was symbolic.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Jack Hampton wrote: I say that the baptism of John was the same baptism which Peter preached except Peter’s had an added element. Those who were baptized with water received a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit.You continue to contradict yourself, Jack. Now you are saying they are both the same, except that they are different.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Furthermore, you are dealing with different dispensations. I could sacrifice a lamb today, but it would not mean the same thing it did in the OT. John’s Baptism, whatever it was (not discussing that point right now) was not Peter’s baptism.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[iWhile both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”
One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis).
In addition to Acts 2:38, there are three other verses where the Greek word eis is used in conjunction with the word “baptize” or “baptism.” The first of these is Matthew 3:11, “baptize you with water for repentance.” Clearly the Greek word eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage. They were not baptized “in order to get repentance,” but were “baptized because they had repented.” The second passage is Romans 6:3 where we have the phrase “baptized into (eis) His death.” This again fits with the meaning “because of” or in “regard to.” The third and final passage is 1 Corinthians 10:2 and the phrase “baptized into (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Again, eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage because the Israelites were not baptized in order to get Moses to be their leader, but because he was their leader and had led them out of Egypt. If one is consistent with the way the preposition eis is used in conjunction with baptism, we must conclude that Acts 2:38 is indeed referring to their being baptized “because” they had received forgiveness of their sins. Some other verses where the Greek preposition eis does not mean “in order to obtain” are Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 19:3; 1 Corinthians 1:15; and 12:13.
The grammatical evidence surrounding this verse and the preposition eis are clear that while both views on this verse are well within the context and the range of possible meanings of the passage, the majority of the evidence is in favor that the best possible definition of the word “for” in this context is either “because of” or “in regard to” and not “in order to get.”
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon does not list the specific meaning “because of” for “eis”. Just because we do not find something in a Greek Lexicon cannot be considered “proof” that a meaning does not exist. As noted above, the Thayer’s Lexicon missed the meaning “because of” in Matt 3:11, 12:41, and Rom 4:20, as well as Acts 2:38.
Kenneth Wuest notes that:
a. The work of Dana & Mantey in the Greek papyri find the use of “eis” as “because of”, and demonstrate this usage in the N.T. examples also of Matt 12:41, where the men of Ninevah repented at (eis = because of) the preaching of Jonah, and Rom 4:20, where Abraham did not staggar at (eis = because of) the promise of God.
b. That “because of” is the correct translation of “eis” in the context of baptism and Acts 2:38 is demonstrated by Matt 3:11, where John said “I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis = because of) repentance”. John himself, in Matt 3:7&8 told the unbelieving Pharisees and Sadducees that came to see his baptism, that they needed to produce works that demonstrated repentance. He did not tell them that his baptism would produce repentance. Repentance first, then baptism.
c. Add to this the testimony of the Jewish historian Josephus, who lived during the time of Christ and wrote about what he saw. Josephus wrote in his book “Antiquities of the Jews”, in Book XVIII, chapter V, paragraph 2, that John only baptized men AFTER they had repented: John “commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away, [or the remission] of some sins [only] , but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness”.
2. What did the King James Version translators intend “for the remission of sins” to mean, when they translated Acts 2:38? The W.W. Skeat Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, first published in 1879, only lists ONE definition of the English word “for”, and that is “in place of”. Skeat, being a dictionary of the English language of the middle 1800’s, is very close to the language of William Shakespeare and the King James translators. So, even the King James translators apparently intended to translate the Greek word “eis” with the meaning “in the place of”, meaning that baptism is a visible picture of the forgiveness of sins that God had already granted. The problem sometimes is that we are trying to understand language written many years ago using our MODERN understanding of the English language! Our modern dictionaries now list as many as 21 different meanings for the English word “for”!
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Go back.
Read it slowly.
Take your time.
And stop trying to change the direction of the conversation. Focus like a laser beam.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Jack Hampton wrote: Also, you want to use things from John’s baptism to make your point but when questioned about the points which you attempted to make all of a sudden you have no answers. What are you trying to hide? Why will you not answer my questions?Jack, I haven’t hidden anything. I have answered all of your questions, as they pertain to the discussion of Acts 2:38. As I have repeatedly stated very plainly, I am simply refusing to permit you to obfuscate the discussion on Acts 2:38 by dragging us through the countryside.
You, on the other hand, refuse to deal with the topic at hand.
- You try to redirect the discussion to other topics
- You ignore factual data - such as the undisputed use of eis in several passages to mean
“because of” rather than “in order to” to name only one specific instance
If you are unwilling to remain on topic and deal with the facts of the issue, you make it impossible to carry on any kind of meaningful discussion together.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Please do not use this thread to discuss moderator action (because that would be off-topic). If you have questions or concerns, contact the mod team via PM or email.
Thanks.
***End Moderator Note***
Second, I agree that the word “and” creates an association in the verse. However, the grammatical structure with the comma after repent and the conjunction “and” indicates two sentences, both with an understood “you” as the noun. IOW, “(You) repent, and (you) be baptized.
For the remission of sins is a prepositional phrase attached to the baptism in the second sentence, not to the repentance in the first sentence.
The discussion has revolved around the meaning of the prepositional phrase and how it describes baptism in the second sentence.
I do not follow your assertion that repentance is because of remission.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
In English, the presence of the comma indicates the “and” is joining two sentences, not a compound verb.
Furthermore, even if we have a compound verb (repent and be baptized), the prepositional phrase would not have to modify both verbs. But, as I made clear already, that is beside the point.
Not sure why you took off to another verse, again. Is it because of the grammatical construction? Yes, there is a comma followed by an “and.” However, the construction differs completely from Acts 2:38.
1. The comma with the “and” does not create two independent clauses but sets of the word “then.”
2. Furthermore, the very meaning of repent (to change one’s mind) indicates a turning (convert in the KJV). You cannot have true repentance without turning. They are essentially the same action.
3. Finally, you are dealing with grammatical apples and oranges. The prepositional phrase here is “to God” which clearly is attached to one specific verb - “turn”, not both verbs. “So” is a coordinating conjunction here which ties two clauses together. The purpose and function of the coordinating conjunction here is entirely different from the purpose and function of the prepositional phrase in Acts 2:38. This does nothing to support your assertion. In fact, your example only supports what I have been saying all along.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
1. Your position, that baptism somehow washes us, is unorthodox in church history
2. Baptismal washing is nowhere associated in scripture with the NT ordinance
3. Both the Greek word eis and the English word for undeniably mean “because of” in certain situations and absolutely can here, which is the best understanding to harmonize this passage with the rest of scripture
4. The grammatical construction in no way requires the prepositional phrase to modify both verbs; indeed, in half or more of the translations I have seen it cannot modify repent because it is placed in an entirely different sentence
5. Even the most rudimentary hermeneutics requires the understanding of the passage the baptism comes as a result of the remission of sins
No matter how you try to massage the facts, they remain plain.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Jack Hampton]This has to do with how the gift of the Spirit is associated to repentance.[Chip Van Emmerik] Jack, the final “and” is again a coordinating conjunction - in every translation I can find - set off by either a comma or a semicolon.Chip, I am not sure what you mean when you speak of “the final ‘and’ ” but here the “and” connects the word “repent” with “be baptized”:
In this translation the “and” is not set off by either a comma or a semicolon. You continue to insist that the words of Peter can only be rendered as being two seperate sentences despite the fact that no other translations of the Bible renders Peter’s words in that way.No I didn’t. I said in that rendering the grammar can only indicate two sentences. I dealt with the renderings lacking the comma in another portion of the post.
The word “and” followed by a comma certainly does not indicate the end of a sentence, as you would have us believe. It only represents “the smallest interruption in continuity.”So… Are you denying that a compound sentence separated by the conjunction and must have a comma, regardless of how small the interruption is?
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn.1:9).True, but it has NOTHING to do with baptism in any way.
This is a cleansing of sin that is for those who are already saved.
And you speak of the “translations” where the rendering of Acts 2:38 is according to “different sentences.” Please give me one translation where the words “(You) repent” is one sentence and then “(You) be baptized” is another sentence. Just one!The one we have been using! Any translation that has a comma before the and (repent, and be baptized) grammatically requires an understanding of two sentences.
Absolutely not. As I have repeatedly shown, the grammatical structure and resultant rules are completely different between the two sections of the verse.Even the most rudimentary hermeneutics requires the understanding of the passage the baptism comes as a result of the remission of sins.If that is true then the same rudimentary hermeneutics requires the understanding that repentance as well as baptism comes as a result of the remission of sins.
Again, I have repeatedly answered your questions about John’s baptism, AS THEY PERTAIN to the discussion of Acts 2:38. However, I have steadfastly refused to allow you to drag the discussion off into unrelated tangents. John’s Baptism is not the same as the NT ordinance under discussion in Acts 2:38, not matter how many similarities they might share. Save the broader discussion of that passage for another discussion.Kenneth Wuest notes that:Chip, you quote Wuest speaking of John’s baptism in order to support your views. But when I want to also discuss John’s baptism you say that I am straying from the subject we are discussing.
That “because of” is the correct translation of “eis” in the context of baptism and Acts 2:38 is demonstrated by Matt 3:11, where John said “I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis = because of) repentance”. John himself, in Matt 3:7&8 told the unbelieving Pharisees and Sadducees that came to see his baptism, that they needed to produce works that demonstrated repentance. He did not tell them that his baptism would produce repentance. Repentance first, then baptism.
It is OK for you to speak of John’s baptism but when I want to answer your points in regard to that baptism you refuse to even discuss this matter. Why is it OK for you to bring into this discussion things in regard to John’s baptism but when I do the same thing I am rebuked? I find this very curious, to say the least.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.Jack, this verse you quoted is written as two sentences.
Repent, and be baptized. = 2 sentences by grammatical structure
Repent and be baptized. = 1 sentence by grammatical structure
This is the translation structure you were quoting until at least post 38.
You said nothing about the absence of the “comma” in that translation.Previously answered the single sentence grammar.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
From your resource grammarbook.com
Rule 12. Use a comma to separate two strong clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction—and, or, but, for, nor. You can omit the comma if the clauses are both short.(Omitting the comma between two sentences joined with a conjunction is new to me, and I would have to verify to be sure this is accurate. However, if true, it only strengthens my argument as it would then apply to all of the translations you and I have looked at)
Examples: I have painted the entire house, but he is still working on sanding the doors.
I paint and he writes.
Rule 14. A comma splice is an error caused by joining two strong clauses with only a comma instead of separating the clauses with a conjunction, a semicolon, or a period. A run-on sentence, which is incorrect, is created by joining two strong clauses without any punctuation.(Bold added)
Incorrect: Time flies when we are having fun, we are always having fun. (Comma splice)
Time flies when we are having fun we are always having fun. (Run-on sentence)
Correct: Time flies when we are having fun; we are always having fun.
OR
Time flies when we are having fun, and we are always having fun. (Comma is optional
because both strong clauses are short.)
OR
Time flies when we are having fun. We are always having fun.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Discussion