Repentance according to the Bible means a "change of mind". In the Greek language of the New Testament, "repentance" (Gr. metanoia) means "to change one's mind". A clear example of this is found in Hebrews 12:17, which says: "For ye know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for a change of mind [Gr. metanoias] in his father, though he sought it diligently with tears" (Hebrews 12:17, ASV). Twist this Scripture to your own destruction, O ye Calvinists!
Matthew 3:1-2
ReplyDeleteNew International Version
John the Baptist Prepares the Way
3 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” Mark 1:4
New International Version
4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Was John's baptism for justification or to restore fellowship ?
I would not describe it as either one. Rather, it was preparatory -- to prepare the way for the Messiah. It was a sign that a change of heart (repentance) had occurred. The Apostle Paul says: "For indeed, Jews ask for signs" (1 Cor. 1:22). John's baptism was an outward sign of that inward reality. It was actually a type of believer's baptism, but for the Jews who lived during the final days of the Old Testament. Related to this, it's important to keep in mind that John the Baptist was the last Old Testament prophet (cf. Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1, 4:5; Matt. 3:1-3, 11:13-14); he lived during the time of the Old Testament dispensation even though those events are recorded in the NT Gospels. For more information related to my understanding of the phrase in Mark 1:4 "a baptism of repentance," see my comments on Mark 1:4 (endnote 2) in my blog post titled, "A Free Grace Translation of Mark 1:1-22" (FGFS, January 8, 2022).
ReplyDeleteNote that Charlie Bing's view is similar to my own, in regards to the preaching of John the Baptist. In light of Acts 19:1-4, Bing concludes: "Therefore, Paul considers John's baptism as preparatory to faith in Christ." (Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, 2nd Edition, p. 71.) I agree that John's baptism was preparatory. I even agree that John's baptism was "preparatory to faith in Christ" in regards to the full revelation of His person and work as we have it in the New Testament dispensation of grace (i.e. the church-age). However, I would say that those in Acts 19:1-4 who had only received John's baptism were indeed saved (were Old Testament believers), even though at that time they had not received the Holy Spirit. Why? They had not received the Holy Spirit because it was a time of transition, not because they were not saved. For more information on this, see: William R. Newell, Romans with Outline Lessons on the Acts, pp. 404-405; Walvoord and Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, p. 409; Rydelnik, The Moody Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), p. 1717.
Someone may bring up Paul's statement in Romans 8:9 when he says, "If anyone does not have the Spirit, he is none of His." But that in church-age truth, not Old Testament truth. Clearly in OT times (during which John the Baptist preached), the Holy Spirit would come and go upon believers (cf. Judges 14:6, 14:19, 15:14, 16:20; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10:10; 16:13, 16:14; Psa. 51:11), and not indwell believers as He does today in this church-age of grace (Jn. 14:16-17). It is anachronistic to apply NT truth (specifically for the church-age) back into the Old Testament or even back into the transition period in the book of Acts when Old Testament believers were entering into the church-age. Concerning this, Walvoord and Zuck affirm: "It should also be noted that the reception of the Holy Spirit in Acts does not follow any set pattern. He came into believers before baptism (Acts 10:44), at the time of or after baptism (8:12-16; 19:6), and by the laying on of apostolic hands (8:17; 19:6). Yet Paul declared (Rom. 8:9) that anyone without the Holy Spirit is not a Christian. Quite obviously the transitional Book of Acts is not to be used as a doctrinal source on how to receive the Holy Spirit (cf. comments on tongues, 1 Cor. 13:8-14:25)." (Walvoord and Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, p. 409.) By the way, I'm not saying that Dr. Bing is doing that; I'm just using his statement to make a point. So those are my thoughts on the preparatory nature of John's baptism. It is very helpful to keep these biblical distinctions in mind! (See 2 Timothy 2:15.)
[Continued below...]
But getting back to your question related to Mark 1:4, Roger E. Post explains it well in his Master's thesis on biblical repentance. On Mark 1:4, he says this: "Water baptism, however, invariably followed repentance in the preaching of John the baptizer. His responsive hearers were baptized 'for' (RSV; Greek: 'eis') repentance: 'I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance . . .' (Mt. 3:11a, ASV). The verse exhibits the causal use of the preposition 'eis': John baptized because people repented. [Dana, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 104.] The baptism was a sign of repentance. [Davidson, The New Bible Commentary, p. 844.] 'Baptisma metanoias, baptism of repentance, occurs four times [all speaking of the baptism of John], Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 13:24, 19:4. The word translated repentance in this phrase is in the genitive case and is descriptive in function. It was a repentance baptism, i.e. the baptism was characterized by and expressive of repentance.' [Julius R. Mantey, 'Repentance and Conversion,' Christianity Today, March 2, 1962, p. 23.]" (Source: Roger E. Post, "The Meaning of the Words Translated 'Repent' and 'Repentance' in the New Testament," Master's Thesis, Wheaton College, 1972, p. 60, ellipsis and emphasis his.)
ReplyDeleteIn other words, John's baptism was not for justification; it was a sign of having been justified. I think it's clear from the Bible that John's baptism was not for salvation. J. R. Mantey, the NT Greek scholar, affirms: "Did John baptize that they might repent, or because of repentance? If the former, we have no further Scriptural confirmation of it. If the latter, his practice was confirmed and followed by the apostles, and is in full harmony with Christ's demand for inward, genuine righteousness. In connection with this verse we have the testimony of a first century writer to the effect that John the Baptist baptized people only after they had repented. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5, section 2: 'Who (John) was a good man, and 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 of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.'" (Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 104.)
How did John's baptism of repentance relate to the forgiveness of sins? Kenneth Wuest, a scholar in the Greek New Testament, summarizes it well when he writes: "One needs to be careful as to the exact import of this baptism. John's words as given in the A. V. [i.e. the KJV] of Matthew 3:11, 'I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance,' make the rite the cause of repentance in the heart of the individual who is baptized. This is due to an unfortunate translation of eis which has various uses. A comparison of this passage with Matthew 12:41 where the same preposition eis is translated 'at,' namely, 'the men of Nineveh repented at, (because of) the preaching of Jonah,' makes it clear that John said, 'Repent, and be baptized because of the remission of sins.' The same holds true of Peter's words in Acts 2:38, where the same preposition is used. This is confirmed by the context in Matthew (3:7-9) where John refuses to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees because they did not show evidences of repentance. This is also shown to be the correct interpretation and translation of eis here, by the testimony of Josephus who declared that John taught the Jews that the rite of baptism would not wash away sins, but was for those who had already had their souls purified beforehand. Thus, we have here the import of water baptism. Submission to this rite is the testimony of the person to the fact that he has been saved." (Wuest, Mark in the Greek New Testament, pp. 16-17.)
Thank you .I would agree with your conclusions.
ReplyDelete