Articles
Arguments Over Words
With great trepidation we venture into the political swamp, not to be partisan but to illustrate a point. An ongoing debate has raged for almost two years over the use of four small words: grossly negligent vs. extremely careless. The terms refer to Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified email, and which she may be guilty of is not relevant to this article. The point of relevancy is that words have meaning, and sometimes that meaning is very significant. The words “grossly negligent” bear criminal implications while “extremely careless” is merely an unflattering commentary on personal judgment.
When it comes to Scripture, pointless quibbling over words sometimes arises. Paul warns of those who are “obsessed with disputes and arguments over words” (1 Tim 6:4). This last term means “‘a dispute about words’” (logos, ‘a word,” mache, ‘a fight’), or about trivial things” (Vine). Gallio seemed aware of such tendencies among Jewish scholars (cf. Ac 18:15).
Meaningless discussions over trivialities or opinions lead to “envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth” (1 Tim 6:4-5). On “useless wranglings” Barnes comments: “The allusion is to inquiries or discussions that were of no practical value, but were a mere consumption of time” (via Truth Commentary on Timothy, Titus and Philemon 138).
Thus words can be trivial and pointless. We can split hairs with them, make invalid distinctions or obscure real issues with euphemism, oxymoron and “trend speak” that don’t actually mean anything. They can also be used to confuse the unwary and poison minds against truth. We must take care that our spiritual discussions are Scripturally relevant, honor the meaning of terms and do not unduly elevate of our opinions.
But sometimes battles must be fought over the smallest words. Debate has raged since the Reformation over the meaning of the preposition “for” in Acts 2:38: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins …”. Calvinists, i.e., those who believe that the actions of a lost person have absolutely no bearing on his salvation, feel the force of this passage and say that “for” means “in view of” or “on the basis of” rather than “for the purpose of.”
A.T. Robertson notes: “In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist … But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose … The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally … One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one 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) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received” (Word Pictures, Vol 3, 35-36).
Here are three ways to respond to Robertson’s assertion:
1) Linguistically – “Many lexicons do not even give a ‘causal use of eis’ (because out of 1,773 occurrences of eis in the NT, only 4 might mean ‘because’), and those that do admit that such a translation is at best controversial” (Reese, New Testament History – Acts 77). McGarvey comments: “(Some) assume that the clause ‘for the remission of sins’ depends exclusively upon the term repent, and that the connection of thought is this: ‘Repent for the remission of sins, and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ.’ It is a sufficient refutation of this assumption to remark, that, if Peter had intended to say this, he would most certainly have done so: but he has said something entirely different. If men are permitted, after this style, to entirely reconstruct the sentences of inspired apostles, then there is no statement in the Word of God which may not be perverted” (Commentary on Acts 41).
2) Contextually (immediate) – To expand on McGarvey, Peter is addressing the murderers of Jesus: “you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death” (Ac 2:23). Mortified by their complicity in this heinous crime – “cut to the heart” – they ask, “what shall we do?” (2:37). They know they are under condemnation and are seeking a remedy. Peter gives a two-fold answer: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins …”. “Repent” and “be baptized” both precede “remission.” Only theological preconceptions can twist Peter’s words to say that baptism is completely unconnected to remission of sins.
3) Contextually (remote) – First, note that the same phrase is found in Mt 26:28 and Lk 3:3. Would any argue that Jesus shed His blood because sins had already been forgiven? Would any argue that John preached “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” because the Israel’s sins had already been remitted?
Second, is it consistent with other Scripture that baptism plays no role whatsoever in salvation? Paul, after three days of praying and fasting, is addressed by Ananias: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Ac 22:16). If, as claimed by Roberson, repentance alone washed away sins, surely Paul would have already been cleansed. But Ananias says he has sins to be removed, and baptism is the key in securing that remission.
Third, Paul directly ties baptism to the death and burial of the old man of sin. Having been “buried with Him through baptism into His death … even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4, 6).
Such discussions as this are not quibbles though they can be tedious. They are made necessary by those who seek to circumvent truth. In doing so they alter definitions, ignore context, misrepresent Greek scholarship, omit relevant passages and supplemental information, etc. Such false ideas require an answer in order to “convict those who contradict” (Tit 1:9).
