Greek speakers - respnd re: Acts 22:16!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lazerlike42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lazerlike42

Guest
Anyone who speaks Greek, respond to this article: dtl.org/alt/background/acts-22-16.htm.

The primary claim is:
Next is the phrase, “wash away your sins.” The words “wash away” is a translation of one Greek word, which is also an imperative. So Paul is being given another command. Along with arising and being baptized, he must also wash away his sins.
Click to expand...
It is here that baptismal regenerationists think they have support for their beliefs. It is claimed the baptism is the means by which Paul is to wash away his sins. However, there is nothing in the structure and order of the verse to commend this interpretation.
Click to expand...
As indicated, there are two imperatives in a row; Paul is being given two (three if you count “Arise”) commands. These are separate and distinct commands. In no way can “be baptized” be the means by which the washing away is to be done.
Click to expand...
If this were what was meant, the commands would have to be reversed. Moreover, there would have to be some kind of instrumentality. In other words, it would need to read, “wash away your sins by being baptized.” But the word order and grammar of the sentence does not even come close to allowing such a translation.
Click to expand...
 
BAPTISAI-be baptised and APOLOUSAI-wash away is to be understood as indicating that they are together rather than prior action, and as showing how one is to get baptized and have one’s sins washed away.
 
Lazerlike42 said:
Anyone who speaks Greek, respond to this article: dtl.org/alt/background/acts-22-16.htm
The primary claim is:
Click to expand...

First, part of that quotation:​

  • …As indicated, there are two imperatives in a row; Paul is being given two (three if you count “Arise”) commands. These are separate and distinct commands. In no way can “be baptized” be the means by which the washing away is to be done.
If this were what was meant, the commands would have to be reversed. Moreover, there would have to be some kind of instrumentality. In other words, it would need to read, “wash away your sins by being baptized.” But the word order and grammar of the sentence does not even come close to allowing such a translation.
The objection from the number of verbs is not fatal, because the text may be employing the rhetorical figure hendiadys. If so, the text would mean, “Arise, wash away your sins by being baptized”.
 
First of all, is the same sense drawn when we say, for example, to a kid coming in from playing in the mud:

“Take a bath and get that dirt off you.”

Is that one act or two?

IMHO, the article splits hairs too much with the Greek, while any reasonable Greek reader would get a clear sense of what was being said from the context alone, since the baptismal (i.e. immersion) imagery ties in neatly with the idea of washing.

Sound exegesis does not rely on only one passage. This, combined with John 3:5 and 1 Peter 5:20-21 makes a more than sufficient case for baptismal regeneration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top