• M
    Michael Burgos

    1. I agree that the inclusion of the pronominal εκαστος indicates urgency. The best I can tell, the reason why the verb is singular is because he is emphasizing that each person needs to be baptized. However, I’ve been attempting to find another place either in the GNT or LXX which uses a similar construction to shed light on this.

    2. Yes, we are talking about different pronouns. My mistake, I misread your previous comments. I was speaking about the second υμων. As for the NIDNTTE, its on my list to purchase when I win the big one. Although, since I don’t play it is unlikely that I’ll get a hold of that set.

    I suppose the only thing at stake here is a better understanding of what is meant by baptism in the name of Jesus. If it modifies both verbs (which I concede it is not likely), then there is a question as to what that expression means. I did some more studying on the “in the name of…” construction, and given its frequency in the LXX, I think I understand it now. Many commentators suggest this is an alternate baptismal invocation (cf. Matt. 28:19). I think it is rather a means unto communicating that baptism is an activity we engage in while acknowledging the Lordship, person, and work of Christ.

    posted in Passage discussions read more
  • M
    Michael Burgos

    Thank you for your reply. It was super helpful. If I may, a few questions…

    Clearly, the “in the name of…” is frequently connected with baptism. However, given that the typical Lucan construction is ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ (not ἐπὶ) , and given the presence of other texts which use the phrase distributively (e.g., “And this is how some of you were; but you were washed, but you were made holy, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 1 Cor. 6:11), and given that sometimes in Acts the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” modifies the command itself (e.g., Acts 3:6; 10:48), do you think its possible?

    As for the majority reading, the pronoun occurs early and frequently (p74, א, A, B, C, 81, 181). While shorter readings tend to be preferred, I think the presence of the pronoun is the harder reading since it is likely that scribes dropped the pronoun in order to conform the phrase to how it appears in the gospels (e.g., Matt. 26:28). Further, McIntyre has pointed out that, “In every case in Luke-Acts the articular ‘sins’ also has a personal pronoun in the genitive.” “Baptism and Forgiveness in Acts 2:38,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 56.

    Lastly, could you point me to any resource that mentions a verb shifting into the singular form because of the passive mood? I can’t seem to find anything.

    posted in Passage discussions read more
  • M
    Michael Burgos

    Acts 2:38

    Hey all, I’m new to Bibleαrc, but I am really loving it. I’ve been studying Acts 2:38 this week, and I have a few questions that you may be able to shed some light on. First, how likely is it that the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” modifies both verbs (i.e., repent, be baptized)? Second, in the phrase μετανοήσατε φησὶν καὶ βαπτισθήτω the two verbs are in numerical discord since “repent” is a plural and and the “be baptized” is singular. Some interpreters have observed this and argued that “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” is a parenthetical comment. I’d don’t agree with that because of the adjective and plural pronoun that follows it seems to grammtically mitigate its force as a singular giving both verbs a plural force. However, why is “be baptized” singular? I can’t figure that one out. It seems really abnormal to me. Thanks!

    posted in Passage discussions read more
  • M
    Michael Burgos

    @Brent-Karding I count myself a continuationist in the sense that I cannot say definitively that the gifts, such as tongues, has ceased upon exegetical grounds. Functionally, however, I don’t see those gifts as normative at best. I really don’t understand how anyone could argue cessationism given 1 Cor. 13:8-12.

    posted in Theological discussions read more
  • M
    Michael Burgos

    As an interesting aside, when the gift of tongues reappeared within the primitive pentecostal movement, it was almost universally claimed that it was xenoglossy (i.e., the speaking of actual preexisting human languages like Mandarin, German, etc.), such that the early Pentecostals sent out missionaries without taking the time to learn the native tongue of those they were ministering to. Today, most who speak in tongues don’t speak xenoglossy, but something else altogether. Personally, I view tongues as actual human languages as in Acts 2:10-11.

    posted in Theological discussions read more