So who should I believe? You or E Calvin Beisner? He said vs. you said. Again, he said - In Greek, every one of you is comprised of the adjective for each (e”kastoV, hekastos), which is used as a noun here, and the partitive genitive pronoun for you (uJmwÇn, humōn). (That is, every one is part [hence partitive] of you [plural].) You identifies the class of which every one is a part. The command [let him] be baptized, moreover, is third-person singular, and its subject is not you but every one. For you to have been the subject of the command to be baptized, it would have to have been in the nominative, or subject, case (uJmeiæV, humeis), not in the genitive, or possessive, case (uJmwÇn, humōn), and the command be baptized would have to have been in the second-person plural (baptivsesqe, baptisesthe), not in the third-person singular (baptisqhvtw, baptistheitō).
In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”
When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament.
These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.
Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner
AT Robertson - Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). 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.”
I listened to a debate on this between a Baptist preacher and a church of Christ preacher. The Baptist preacher states:
The Greek rule regarding agreement between verbs and pronouns requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
The fundamental question is this - to which verb, the verb "repent," or the verb "be baptized," does the prepositional phrase "for the remission of your sins" refer to or connect? That is the $64, 000 question.
First, lets talk about the ANTECEDENT OF humon or the pronoun "your" in English. What is the antecedent of this pronoun? In order to answer this, we must first note that there are two main clauses preceding the prepositional phrase.
Though both leading clauses are imperatives, they are not identical, for the first clause, "repent ye" (including both verb and pronoun), is second person plural, while the second clause, "each one of you be baptized" (including both verb and pronoun), is third person singular. Thus, there is a change of both person and number between the verbs and pronouns in these two clauses.
In the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again to second person plural, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.”
Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
Acts 2:38 has two occurrences of the pronoun "your" or "humon"; both are second person plural in the genitive case. The first occurs in the phrase "each of you," in which humon functions as a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which each person derives. The second occurrence is in the phrase "for the remission of your sins," in which humon is a subjective genitive indicating whose sins are involved in the remission.
The basic rule of concord, in Greek, stipulates that a personal pronoun (in this case humon) agrees with its antecedent in gender and number.
The concord between verb and pronoun requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
If one associates forgiveness with baptism, the verse translated into English, with due accord to person and number, would read like this, "let him [third singular] be baptized for the remission of your [second plural] sins." But, such an interpretation or translation would be supporting an absurdity. It would be affirming that an individual's baptism remitted the sin of others, in this case, that of the Pentecostal penitents, or of the crowd, as a group.
The structure of Acts 2:38 illustrates that the command to be baptized is parenthetical and is not syntactically connected to remission of sins. When Peter commanded the people to repent, he was speaking to the crowd. Then the command to be baptized was directed to each individual. In the "remission of your sins" phrase, Peter again directed his words to the crowd collectively. So who should I believe? *Who's interpretation is in harmony with Acts 3;19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31? What they said or what you said? Are you satisfied with contradictions in the Bible? I'm certainly not. Look again at Matthew 3:11 - "I baptize you with water for (eis) "in order to obtain" repentance or for (eis) "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? The answer is obvious and it fits perfectly. Look at Luke 24:47 - .."repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name.." Look at Acts 3:19 - "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.." *Hermeneutics.
Says you. Again, it's you said vs. they said. Who do think that I am going to believe?
What is absurd is interpreting a verse in the Bible in such a way that it contradicts multiple passages of Scripture (Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31). That is the bottom line for me. Robertson is not the only Greek scholar who disagrees with you.
Says you and people who attend various churches that teach salvation by works, namely, the church of Christ, the Roman Catholic church, the Mormon church, the Oneness Pentecostal church etc.. All of these churches (which have perverted the gospel) place a heavy emphasis on water baptism being absolutely necessary for salvation and use Acts 2:38 to support their argument, which is a red flag for me. The Roman Catholic church has gone off the deep end with baptismal regeneration and even baptize infants. The Mormon church has practiced baptism for the dead. I was once approached by a Oneness Pentecostal while delivering mail and she asked me if I had been baptized in "Jesus name only" and specified that if I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that I will not be saved. She even told me to go home that night and read "Acts 2:38" and if necessary, baptize myself in the bath tub in "Jesus name only." It amazes me to see how so many people have gone off the deep end with water baptism.
You are entitled to your opinion. I don't care how many people sign off on salvation by water baptism, which is in contradiction to salvation by grace through faith, not works. Scripture MUST harmonize with other Scripture. Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31). *Perfect Harmony. You seem more concerned with forcing Acts 2:38 to "conform" to your theology rather than harmonizing Scripture with Scripture.
Regardless of what you say about Robertson (you can pit Robertson and Wallace against each other all you want), but in the end, neither Robertson or Wallace interpreted Acts 2:38 to mean that baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins. Apparently then, your forced grammar argument doesn't measure up and certainly doesn't harmonize with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31.
