The Grammar of Acts 2:38

Baptism FOR or Baptism BECAUSE OF ?

(The Peshitta Knows!)
Abstract: In an earlier version of this page, I wrote, that A.T. Robertson was
apparently the first to suggest that the Greek phrase in Acts 2:38 should be
translated as "because your sins are forgiven" instead of the more usual "for the
forgiveness of your sins". However, I have since been referred to an internet
link to a 19th Century article from Volume IV of Lard's Quarterly which indicates
that the American Baptist scholar, Dr. John A. Broaddus proposed a similar (if not
identical) view in the mid-1800's. Based on this article, Dr. Broaddus' view
seems to have first publically appeared in The Religious Herald in Greenville,
South Carolina in 1867. The article was responded to by J. W. McGarvey who
observed that it was the first time he had encountered such an argument. Other
sources easy to locate on the internet indicate that Dr. Broaddus had been writing
articles critical of the Campbell-Stone movement since the 1830's. If the
indicated links become broken, please notify me and I will provide an alternate
link. Likewise, if anyone can discover a presenter of this idea earlier than Dr.
Broaddus, please notify me.

Since Dr. Broaddus's view is so similar to Robertson's, but since Robertson and
his Word Pictures is perhaps more widely known, the comments below will address
Robertson's presentation rather than Broaddus'. The reader is strongly advised to
examine Broaddus' analysis preserved in Lard's Quarterly. McGarvey's responding
critique, which follows Broaddus' explanation, appears fatal, but I have
Evangelical person's merely shrugging off what McGarvey wrote. This reaction is
indicative of major hermeneutical ignorance and brainwashing. It is my hope that
the few additional notions I have included below may serve to open the minds of
those who yet retain a spirit of honor and integrity.

Being totally hostile to the notion that any action of ours could be
"sacramental", i.e. could result in the forgiveness of sins, Roberston went to
great lengths to further establish his doctrine. However, if he had been reading
the text in the Peshitta (the Aramaic translation of the Greek New Testament)
instead of English, he would not have been able to even suggest such an
alternative! Nor, if he knew what is now known about Hebrew idioms would he have
been able to suggest comparing Acts 2:38 with Matt 3:11. These facts demonstrate
that, Greek scholar though he supposedly was, his private theological and
soteriological views led him astray. And through him and his students, many
others have unwittingly followed.

Some advice...

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we
share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once
for all entrusted to the saints.
NIV Jude 1:3
So I will always remind you of these things,...I think it is right to refresh your
memory as long as I live...And I will make every effort to see that, after my
death, you will always be able to remember these things....I now write unto
you;...I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance... I want you to recall the
words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord
and Savior through your apostles.
NIV 2 Peter 1:12-15; 3:1-2
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
AV Heb 10:22

Note: In order to view Greek words clearly on this page, please download and
install this TTF Greek font .

About Baptismal Regeneration

Let me say in preface that, considering nearly twenty centuries of historical
statements, plus many personal discussions, I have never encountered any writer or
speaker who believed, taught, preached or interpreted the scriptures to mean that
baptism by itself--apart from prior faith, repentance and confession--brought
about or effected the remission of sins, the regeneration of the believer, an
entry into Jesus Christ or his body (the Church), or any other blessing. (I have
heard rumors of a rare missionary or two in India who taught such things, but have
been unable to personally verify the rumor.) However, this very thing--this false
concept--is exactly what certain Baptists and Evangelicals have, since the 19th
Century, accused others of believing and teaching, even calling them a "cult".
This misrepresentation and misleading slander hardly honors the accusers! (Such
an accusation, though on other grounds, was also made by Calvin against the Roman
Catholics.) It is highly significant that the AnteNicene Fathers were not a bit
shy of frequently using the word "regeneration" in connection with baptism. When
we seek to remember the content of the faith that was once for all given to the
saints we would do well to discover what the early Church actually taught.

Repudiation of the Traditional Interpretation

From about 1867 there has been a divergent interpretation of the Holy Spirit's
words spoken through Peter, recorded at Acts 2:38. That divergent view was, as
far as I have been able to determine, first issued by Dr. John A. Broaddus, and
then by A.T. Robertson in his Word Pictures of the New Testament in the 1930's.
Robertson was an American Baptist and most of those who have repeated his words
and supported his interpretations have been American Baptists, or those instructed
by such. On the other hand, most major Greek grammarians, lexicographers or
commentaries have scoffed at and rejected his interpretations. The divergent view
under consideration emphatically denies, and attempts to refute on grammatical
grounds, the traditional and orthodox, so-called, "sacramental" interpretation.

Robertson was eventually the instructor of two Baptist students, Dana and Mantey
who, about 1950, published a grammar of the Greek New Testament. The most
distinctive item about this grammar is that it fully repeats the second of the two
propositions Robertson asserted. Many others have since written and published
articles and books containing the same matter. Here then are Robertson's
propositions from Vol. 3.[1].

The comparison...
Then Peter [said] to them, "(Youpl) Repentpl, and be baptizedsing each onesing of
youpl in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and youpl shall
receivepl the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Traditional version Acts 2:38
Then Peter [said] to them, "Repentpl, and youpl shall receivepl the gift of the
Holy Spirit, (and be baptizedsing each onesing of youpl in the name of Jesus
Christ because of the remission of your sins)"
Robertson's version Acts 2:38

Robertson's Proposition #1.

Because the verbs "repent" and "receive" are both 2nd person plural forms, and "be
baptized" is 3rd person singular, then the phrase "and be baptized...your sins" is
a parenthetical expression separating the two main verbal ideas (repent &
receive). Therefore, Peter is actually telling them to repent and they would then
be able to receive the Holy Spirit, signifying their acceptance with God (Acts
10:44-48). Then, "because your sins have been [already] remitted, be baptized" as
a witness to others of the fact.
Proposition #1 answered.
Purely on grammatical grounds, Robertson's assertions are clearly fabricated for
ulterior reasons not related to the text itself. He fails--as do those who parrot
him[2].--to mention the fact that the "you" immediately following the command
given to "each one" to "be baptized" is plural ("...each one of YOU).
Grammatically, it makes perfect sense to have the person and number shift from 2nd
plural to 3rd singular and back again, because the subject "each one" (ekastov) is
itself 3rd person singular. Peter is simply addressing the crowd as a whole, then
each individual within the crowd as parts of the whole. This is nothing special
and is quite common in normal English usage as well, especially in making public
speeches before large audiences. To claim that the shift in person and number
indicates the introduction of a parenthetical idea is to set a translational
precedent which is unnecessary in the Greek and hardly, if ever, to be found in
the various translations of the Greek into numerous languages. More will be said
about this below. More seriously, Robertson's proposition completely ignores (or
destroys) the normal, conjunctive use of kai. Even in English, "and" joins two
ideas; it seldom separates them! Robertson confirms this in his comment on Matt
3:11 where he quotes McNeile, "Spirit and fire are coupled [joined] with one
preposition, as a double baptism." Similarly, one must ask, why do Robertson and
his followers seek to rearrange the word order (syntax) only of passages that
involve baptism? (e.g. Matt 26:28)

Robertson's Proposition #2.

Because our remission of sins and salvation is based solely on our faith in what
God's grace accomplished by Christ's shed blood, then it is wrong to think that
the act of being baptized has any effect or result attached to it at all.
Therefore, it makes better sense to translate the phrase in Acts 2:38 as "be
baptized because your sins are forgiven." [underlined emphases supplied]

Proposition #2 answered.
It is clear from Robertson's phrasing that he has formed a conclusion before
he examined the grammar, and then formed his grammatical explanation to agree with
his soteriology. In other words, he has practiced isogesis instead of exegesis.
This is nothing very new, since many famous writers and preachers have done the
same, especially since the days of Jerome and Augustine. Robertson's repudiation
of over 1800 years of Church exposition is really based on a perceived conflict
between Faith and Reason, between Spirit and Matter and between Grace and
Obedience. It is further based on Augustine's and Calvin's theology and
soteriology which stated that Man can have NO part at all in his salvation; that
God has to do EVERYthing. It's too bad (for them) that the scriptures--not to
mention ALL the Fathers before the 4th Century and quite a few afterward--wrote
the opposite.
Robertson wrote that, how one understands the Holy Spirit's words in Acts
2:38 depends on whether you "look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of
evangelical theology". Partly, this is true, but it should not be so. How one
understands it should be based on the consistent teaching of the Church from the
beginning (once given) until now. To abandon traditional doctrine (e.g. a
sacramental view of baptism or of the Eucharist) because it disagrees with our
understanding, is to commit the opposite mistake of the Roman church. By
"sacramental" Robertson means the ancient idea that a particular action can result
in bringing peace between an angry god and whomever the god is angry at. Thus,
the throwing of a young virgin female into the mouth of a threatening volcano was
thought to ward off an eruption. Likewise, the shedding of a particular animal's
blood was believed capable of inducing God to forgive the offending person who
made the sacrifice. (And, even Evangelicals and Baptists teach that by "confessing
with the mouth the Lord Jesus" one will be saved. Rom 10:9 - actually, a
baptismal passage!) By associating this idea with the view termed sacramental,
Robertson also distinguishes it from that of Evangelical theology. Robertson
understands "evangelical" to apply to a view which is basically Augustinian and
Calvinistic. No action of Man can pertain to his salvation, even when that action
is commanded by God and is promised by God to result in one or more blessings when
the believer obeys. Thus, evangelicals believe and teach that some other
explanation must be found and given than has been given for more than 1800 years.
Some "new" truth must be "recovered" and established to be the genuine doctrine
"once and for all given to the saints". Unfortunately for them, that "new" truth
is unable to rationally explain away all the Fathers' consistent and unified
statements about baptism. Nor can they point to a single instance in the writings
of the early Church where their "new" truth was expressed or believed. It simply
isn't there to be found, let alone remembered! Ironically, both Augustine and
Calvin, whom Evangelicals turn to so often as definitive, held a sacramental view
of baptism!

Robertson generated yet another false trail when he sought to establish his
grammatical explanations by appeal to other scriptures with similar constructions,
and by boldly assuring the reader that there are a multitude of such other
instances both in and outside the Bible. Both he and his followers appeal
principally to Matt 12:41 where the citizens repented at the preaching of Jonah.
Supposedly, this means they repented because of Jonah's preaching. But
Robertson's argument is based on a translation!!! There is no evidence that the
Greeks interpreted eiv-plus-a-noun in an explanatory or causal way. And, in
spite of his claim that there are many other examples to support his view, he only
lists one other verse--Matt 10:41 (though his followers frequently add Matt 3:11).
Contrasted with Robertson's two examples in (English) scripture (to which he hoped
to add Acts 2:38), there are hundreds of examples expressing purpose or result--
without even needing to consider writings outside the Bible. To be fair,
Robertson acknowledges this other possible interpretation, but does so in such a
way as to suggest that it is very much in the minority. But, eiv generally has
the meaning of "movement into". Thus, we find it frequently used in connection
with someone "entering" a city or a house. Therefore, it would be quite normal to
translate the phrase of 12:41 as: "they repented into Jonah's preaching" or more
smoothly: "they turned into Jonah's preaching" which is similar to when we say:
"we turned into the main road." Acts 2:38 could just as easily be translated as:
"be immersed...into the remission of sins". True, in English we reason that if
Jonah hadn't first preached, the Ninehvites would not have repented, leading us
to a causal relationship, but Matthew's grammar, and the use of eiv, is not
explaining what prior event caused the Ninehvites to repent, but is describing to
what they turned. Likewise, the Holy Spirit through Peter is not explaining to
what prior event (water) baptism testifies, but is describing to what the people
were to be immersed.
Robertson's appeal to Matt 10:41 is also bogus, though he himself may not
have realized this. The phrase "receive...in the name of..." is a direct
rendering of a Hebrew idiom. The idiom, as used in Hebrew documents, cannot be
interpreted as Robertson attempts: "receive...because of the fact that one is..."
(a prophet, a disciple, etc.). Apparently, Robertson did not study Hebrew and
Rabbinical texts to the same extent as Greek New Testament texts. What excuse can
his followers proffer?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robertson in several statements in his Pictures makes clear he believes that

baptism, as an outward physical act merely serves as a witness of what has already
happened to the believer, namely, the remission of sins. Biblically, however, as
a witness, baptism serves rather to act out--as in a play--what has already
happened, to Jesus: His death, burial and resurrection (Rom 6:1-4). Paul says
explicitly that it is at this point exactly--by means of our baptism--that we are
united to that person (Jesus), to his death, to his burial and to his
resurrection, and through that union and regeneration that our sins are remitted
and we are justified and reborn (see also Gal 3:26-27; Titus 3:5). This view--
that it is at baptism that this union takes place--was so totally unacceptable to
Robertson that the union must be explained away as a mere symbol. Sadly, the
logical consequences are severe; a mere symbolic union means we are not actually
joined to Christ, we have not really died with him, and we can have no real hope
of being raised with him--except symbolically! Nor have we been freed from sin.
Note: The Anglican confession that baptism is "an outward sign of an [already
existing] inward grace" is a formulation due primarily to Calvin in order to
justify infant baptism and to support his Augustinian view of how God saves us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite all of these reasons to ignore Robertson's interpretation, even if we

accept Robertson's proposals as being true, he misses yet one more significant
aspect of the grammar of Acts 2:38. Even if we relocate the "parenthetical"
phrase to the end of the verse and preface it with a "because of", those hearing
Peter's words were still being commanded to "be baptized into the name of Jesus
Christ". There exists similar images at Galatians 3:27 and 1 Corin 12:13. Even
Robertson's rearrangement and alteration of the text cannot avoid the logical
conclusion that, they are being instructed to enter Jesus by the means of [water]
baptism (based on cultural ideas of the time relating the NAME of someone with the
person named)!
Other Parallel Scriptures and Theological Consequences
To very briefly demonstrate Robertson's bias, and to consider the consequences of
using Robertson's method, let us consider the following passages where the exact
same phrase as in Acts 2:38 is to be found. The Westcott and Hort Greek text
shall be used since it is generally accepted by most evangelicals. However, in
these verses there is hardly any variation with other prepared texts.

In all four instances below, the phrase eiv afesin amartiwn ("to" or "towards" or
"into the forgiveness of sins") occurs.

* Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3 - baptisma metanoiav eiv afesin amartiwn

In Mk 1 & Lk 3 we are presented with John's baptism (a noun) "of repentance"
(GCF). Following Robertson then, John's baptism of repentance was because of
their sins already being forgiven. Odd that John doesn't seem to think that to be
the case at Luke 3:7!

* Lk 24:47 - metanoian eiv afesin amartiwn

In Lk 24, we again find the same phrase. This is a favorite verse of American
Baptists who follow Robertson's lead. In most English translations, it is common
to find an "and" joining repentance AND forgiveness, but in the WH text it is
missing. However, following Robertson, the meaning becomes, "the good message of
repentance because of the forgiveness of sins shall be proclaimed." (What???!
Faith or Belief is not needed? Only repentance?) Notice however, that Jesus
states that this message (which does not include mention of baptism in Jesus'
version) will be proclaimed beginning at Jerusalem. It is certainly important to
look at the contents of the message that actually began the proclamation at
Jerusalem! It can of course be found in Acts 2:38ff. - metanohsatekai baptisyhtw
(ekastov umwn en tw onomati ihsou cristou) eiv afesin twn amartiwn umwn

* Mt 26:28 - ekcunnomenon eiv afesin amartiwn

Now we come to the third and most fatal example (for Broaddus, Robertson, and
their followers). Instead of baptism or repentance being singled out as the
"means of" (=>Sacramental) or the "witness to" (=>Evangelical) the forgiveness of
sins, we find Jesus specifying the "pouring out" of his life's blood.
Consistently following Robertson's method, this then becomes, "...my
blood...poured out because of the forgiveness of sins. In other words, before
Jesus shed his blood on Calvary, the sins "of many" were already forgiven! His
blood being poured out (passive voice, just like "be baptized") was to testify to
that fact. Surely this undermines the whole history of New Testament and
Christian teaching on salvation! It also rather demeans Jesus' sacrifice!
Obviously, it is not too strange to understand why Robertson and his followers
refrain from applying their method to this passage. But if Jesus' blood was
"poured out for (the purpose of) the forgiveness of sins" then by the same
identical wording and grammar, believers should "be baptized...for (the purpose
of) the forgiveness of" their sins.

We discover then, that Robertson's secret to determine how the grammar of a

particular passage is to be translated is based not on established grammatical
principles, or even on the teaching "once and for all given" but on one's prior
notions of what the text ought to say.

The Final Proof:

Peshitta (Jacobite and Nestorian) Greek (Westcott & Hort)

Said
to them
Simon
You repent
and dip (plunge, bathe, wash)
each one
of you
in name
of the Lord
Yeshua (Jesus)
for the forgiveness
of the sin
in order that you might
receive
the gift
of the spirit
the holy So Peter
[said] to them
You repent
and
you be baptized
each one
of you
in the name
of Jesus Christ
into
forgiveness
of the sins
of you (your)
and
you shall receive
the gift
of the holy spirit
Latin (Vulgate)
Petrus vero ad illos paenitentiam inquit agite et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum
in
nomine Iesu Christi in remissionem peccatorum vestrorum et accipietis donum Sancti
Spiritus
Peter truly to them, Repent (do penance) he said, Go and be baptized each one of
you, in name of Jesus Christ, for forgiveness of sins of you (your), and you will
receive gift of Holy Spirit.

The Peshitta text shown above represents the two best manuscripts and shows a
translation of Acts 2:38 into Aramaic. The various Peshitta manuscripts we have
date from between the 3rd to the 7th Centuries a.d. This is long enough after the
founding of the Church so that major doctrinal disturbances would have been
resolved, especially on such a basic "milk" teaching like baptism. The same is
true for the 4th Century Vulgate translation. But both versions are early enough
that we can be fairly confident they accurately represent a knowledge of the Greek
language. Although Latin gradually replaced Greek for official purposes, Greek
continued to be the common language for quite some time. It is far more likely
that the scholars of the 3rd Century and later understood Greek grammar much more
clearly than the linguists of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Therefore, it is ultimately significant (and fatal for Robertson's analysis) to

find that the Vulgate clearly renders the text according to traditional standards:
eiv indicates purpose and result (or goal). Not only is this sufficient in itself
to settle the matter, but the Peshitta goes further, nailing the coffin lid shut.
The Aramaic grammatical form used by the Peshitta translators is absolutely
emphatic that being baptized is for (the purpose of obtaining) the forgiveness of
sins. The prefix used in the Aramaic cannot be translated in any other way!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This then, is the puzzle. If the apostles originally explained their doctrine of
salvation and the place of baptism within that doctrine as Robertson and
Evangelicals propose, then why did all the Church Fathers who wrote on the
subject, plus the Latin and Aramaic translators, explain it so differently. Even
more puzzling is, why have all new major translations--including the Calvinistic
NIV--translated Acts 2:38 and related passages according to traditional
renderings, ignoring Broaddus' / Robertson's analysis and the view about baptism
of "evangelical theology"? There seem to be only two possible explanations.
Either the apostles' doctrine was radically altered at a very early date (within
the first Century) and the Church and all her bishops conspired to go along with
the "sacramental" change until the present day, or else Broaddus (and subsequent
adherents, e.g. American Baptists & other Evangelicals) have tried to introduce a
new doctrine which should be treated with extreme suspicion. Since absolutely no
hint has been found of Broaddus' grammatical conclusions regarding baptism, until
he himself wrote them, the choice would seem to be clear. Let us return to--if
necessary--and adhere to, and contend for the faith once and for all delivered to
the saints, remembering the command given by our Lord and Savior through His
apostles! As Calvin wrote, (Bk 4, Ch 15, Sec 17) "God in baptism has promised
the remission of sins...That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us
therefore embrace it in faith." And let us believe the promise: "He who believes
and is baptized shall be saved." Mk 16:16
_________________
1 Robertson's own words:
"And be baptized every one of you" (kai baptisyhtw ekastov umwn). 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 tw onomati Ihsou Cristou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in
Matthew 28:19 (eiv to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eiv to
onoma and en tw onomati with baptizw since eiv and en are really the same word in
origin. In Acts 10:48 en tw onomati Ihsou Cristou occurs, but eiv to onoma in
Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5. The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of
one as eiv 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 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 "Mt 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 afesin twn amartiwn umwn). 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 eiv does exist, as in 1 Corinthians 2:7 eiv doxan hmwn
[for our glory]. But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the
use of eiv for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples eiv
onoma profhtou, dikaiou, mayhtou 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 Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of
Jonah (eivto khrugma Iwna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of
Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine‚
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. 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. The gift of the
Holy Ghost (thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatov). [Back]

2 A Typical Example:
A paricular website (http://answers.org/wwwboard2/2265.html) relates the following
excerpt:

Dr. Robert A. Morey has a Master's degree in Comparitive Religion from Westminster
Seminary in Philadelphia (where one of his professors was Francis A. Schaeffer).
He also has a Doctor of Ministry degree in Christian Apologetics from Faith
Theological Seminary (which Francis A. Schaeffer and others founded during 1937 as
an offshoot of Westminster Seminary.) Finally, an honorary Doctor of Divinity
degree in Islamic Studies was conferred by Faith Theological Seminary because of
his book ``The Islamic Invasion". Also, at the Christian Research Institute,
Walter Martin said that Morey was Martin's best student. He said that he knows
Greek. He translated some of the Psalms for the International Standard Version
(confer www.davidsonpress.com).
[Note the long list of credits, as though they guarantee that what the man says
will therefore be true. Also, if he was W. Martin's best student, one must wonder
how poorly Martin's other students must have been. Faith Theological is an
Evangelical seminary.]

Do you have to be baptized to be saved?

On Oct. 23, 2003, Dr. Morey responded to this question on his radio program (which
was cancelled the following December due to a change of owners of the studio).
Referring to Acts 2:38, he gave his own translation of the passage:

"Peter said to them," in the plural now, "You ALL repent" and "you ALL shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." ...Now once you've repented, once you have
the Holy Spirit, then let each of you individually-- see now it changes grammar
because it's a parenthetical statement. That's why all your English Bibles have
"Repent" and then a comma, see, because the comma is telling you what now comes is
a parenthetical pause. ...Once you have repented, once you have received the gift
of the Holy Spirit ..., you should be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ in
view of the fact that your sins have been forgiven.
...So, those people such as in the Church of Christ and the Mormons and others,
not knowing Greek or Hebrew, the original languages...they don't emphasize
that...they assume that it's [all] one sentence with no parenthesis--they ignore
all the grammar. And they think the [Greek] word "eis" means that he was telling
them "you need to be baptized in order to obtain forgiveness of sins."
[Many more such comments were made during his broadcast, especially in his
exposition on Matt 3:11 and 12:41]

__ See, Baptismal Regeneration, which is a doctrine borne out of superstition that

water somehow ... you know, the water you drink, the water in your toilet, is a
holy water & it will wash your sins away. Well, water will never wash your sins
away, it's only the blood of Jesus [that will do so]. .... Water never saved
anyone except from dehydration. .... It's a carry-over from Roman Catholicism &
throwing it on vampires & stuff like this. ....

[Apparetnly, Dr. Morey doesn't remember the words of Hebrews 10:22, "...our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.". It
seems remarkable that someone could be such an acclaimed expert in Greek and yet
come across sounding like a "backwoods hick from Punkin' Creek", not to mention
have such a confused notion of indicators of parentheses in Greek grammar. But
such, sadly, is too often the case.]