NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp sacramental:

rwp@Acts:2:38 @{Repent ye} (\metanosate\). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You _crucified_ this Jesus. Now _crown_ him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. {And be baptized every one of you} (\kai baptistht hekastos hmn\). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." 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" (\en ti onomati Isou Christou\). In accordance with the command of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| (\eis to onoma\). No distinction is to be insisted on between \eis to onoma\ and \en ti onomati\ with \baptiz\ since \eis\ and \en\ are really the same word in origin. In strkjv@Acts:10:48| \en ti onomati Isou Christou\ occurs, but \eis\ to \onoma\ in strkjv@8:16; strkjv@19:5|. The use of \onoma\ means in the name or with the authority of one as \eis onoma prophtou\ (Matthew:10:41|) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in strkjv@Matthew:28:19|, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on ¯Matthew:28:19| for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). {Unto the remission of your sins} (\eis aphesin tn hamartin hmn\). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of \eis\ does exist as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:7| \eis doxan hmn\ (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of \eis\ for aim or purpose. It is seen in strkjv@Matthew:10:41| in three examples \eis onoma prophtou, dikaiou, mathtou\ where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in strkjv@Matthew:12:41| about the preaching of Jonah (\eis to krugma Ina\). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the _Koin_ generally (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). 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. Songs: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. {The gift of the Holy Ghost} (\tn drean tou hagiou pneumatos\). The gift consists (Acts:8:17|) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE PURPOSE The author states it repeatedly. He urges the Jewish Christians to hold fast the confession which they have made in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour. Their Jewish neighbours have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism. The Judaizers tried to make Jews out of Gentile Christians and to fasten Judaism upon Christianity with a purely sacramental type of religion as the result. Paul won freedom for evangelical and spiritual Christianity against the Judaizers as shown in the Corinthian Epistles, Galatians, and Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion tried to dilute Christianity with their philosophy and esoteric mysteries and here again Paul won his fight for the supremacy of Christ over all these imaginary \aeons\ (Colossians and Ephesians). But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy) in truth from the living God. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. The author turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God's Son and man's Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed. Moffatt terms it "a profound homily."

rwp@John:6:54 @{He that eateth} (\ho trgn\). Present active participle for continual or habitual eating like \pisteuete\ in verse 29|. The verb \trg\ is an old one for eating fruit or vegetables and the feeding of animals. In the N.T. it occurs only in strkjv@John:6:54,56,58; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@Matthew:24:38|. Elsewhere in the Gospels always \esthi\ or \ephagon\ (defective verb with \esthi\). No distinction is made here between \ephagon\ (48,50,52,53,58|) and \trg\ (54,56,57,58|). Some men understand Jesus here to be speaking of the Lord's Supper by prophetic forecast or rather they think that John has put into the mouth of Jesus the sacramental conception of Christianity by making participation in the bread and wine the means of securing eternal life. To me that is a violent misinterpretation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ. It is a grossly literal interpretation of the mystical symbolism of the language of Jesus which these Jews also misunderstood. Christ uses bold imagery to picture spiritual appropriation of himself who is to give his life-blood for the life of the world (51|). It would have been hopeless confusion for these Jews if Jesus had used the symbolism of the Lord's Supper. It would be real dishonesty for John to use this discourse as a propaganda for sacramentalism. The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as he unfolds himself as the true manna.