I am in the midst of an ongoing theological clash/debate.
The other guy, if I understand English aright, and the English of the KJV (that’s right!) distorts the scripture.
BUT, he may also know Bible Greek, which may or may not back up his position, it doesn’t matter, because he will twist it to reflect his beliefs, unless…I (SDMB and me, that is!) can bust him.
So, the verse is Acts 1:5…“John baptized you with water, BUT you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”
Mr. Lessbrilliantthanme says that the ‘but’ indicates replacement, in regarding to baptism, rather than addition. Like a sap, I didn’t question it. Upon reflection, I thought about it, and realized that he was wrong; in English, that is. But, what about the Greek? In addition to the Greek, I wanted to run the English by you guys, before I drew down on the son of Baal and set him to flight like the Amalekites!
I say the ‘but’ indicates, not replacement, but 1. separation of the two, and 2. is irrespective of replacement.
Warning: Answer from Christian teachings here. The intent is to provide HH with what he asked for in the OP, not to advance a given religious doctrine as ‘factual’ in the GQ sense.
The overwhelming majority of the Christian Church through 20 centuries has continued to baptize using water, with a multiple set of symbolism: washing one clean of sin, drowning the old unregenerate man and raising to new life in Christ (this is move obvious in total immersion), adoption into God’s family the Church…
But at the same time, there is also a sense in which the Holy Spirit is supposed to enter into the new Christian, purging that which is evil, sanctifying that which is good, gradually changing the personality to one that is more Christlike.
The two things are seen as complementary, not as one replacing the other.
Now, there are some Christian groups that tend to reject the physical world as the province of the Devil and say that everything Scriptural has a purely spiritual meaning, who reject baptism altogether and claim that the conversion experience is the ‘baptism of the holy Spirit’ – as well as Pentecostal groups who point to the similar experience but involving glossolalia as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. But they are, well, perhaps not ‘fringe’ but not the witness of the majority of Christian groups, Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic, which adhere to water baptism as well as some interior spiritual work by the Holy Spirit.
That’s as solid an answer as is appropriate for GQ; anything further is witnessing of the GD variety.
This is a true statement: I was baptized with water as a baby, but I was also baptized with the Holy Spirit when I became a member of Unity Church when I was in my forties.
I didn’t at all consisder the second baptism a replacement baptism, but it was required for membership in this particular church body. I don’t even know if that is the practice denomination-wide. Both baptisms were legitimate and a matter of church record.
I can only answer from the “interpret English” angle: It’s saying “You were baptized with water. But that’s not all that will happen. You will ALSO be baptized with the Spirit in a few days.”
OOOOps, sorry if I misworded my question.
What I had in mind was this:
“Can the Greek word for ‘but’ in the KJV Acts 1:5 be correctly interpreted as indicative of ‘replacement’ or is that a bunch of hooey?
In English, can ‘but’ be indicative of replacement, or is that a bunch of hooey, as I suspect?”
Thanks,
hh
Thanks, Chessie Sense, that’s about 1/2 my battle.
First off, the word for “but” (δέ. de) can be translated as many different conjunctions. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance lists “also, and, but, moreover, now,” and your link includes “yet.” To know which is meant, we need to look at the rest of the verse.
Your example translation (NIV?) leaves a word in the verse untranslated. Let’s use the KJV offered in your link.
That word “truly” (μέν, men) is important. The full entry in Strong’s is
In other words, men affirms or concedes the first clause, establishing that the first clause is important, and thus cannot be replaced. A possible translation to get this across in English could be “Yes, John did baptize you with water, but, in a few days, you will [also] be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Does that make it clearer?
As for English, it’s a bit muddier. I’ve heard it said that the first clause can be ignored if it is followed by “but”, but I don’t think this is true. Heck, try it the previous sentence. I don’t think it holds water. But let’s look at a dictionary definition. Merriam Webster Online is handy:
None of these seem to deal with replacement. They all seem to specifically require the first clause to be considered true. I see no indication that the second clause replaces the first.
men…de… is a very common pairing in Classical/NT Greek. Neither of the two particles are particularly forceful, but in combination I would normally translate them ‘on the one hand… on the other hand’.
In the specific context of NT Greek here, I would say that the ‘de’, especially in combination with ‘men’ definitely does not imply replacement, and in fact doesn’t really mean ‘but’ in an adversative sense at all.
You should clarify scripture with scripture, look to examples of baptisms of water and the Holy Spirit, especially after that verse, where there are plenty.
Also for some the baptism of the Holy Spirit came before the water baptism, but the water baptism was still done.
Also IMHO try not to get too hung up on a translation issue:
It’s really God who has to teach you what His Word means.
The Book of Acts shows various people being baptized with both water & the Holy Spirit- the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9, Cornelius’s circle in Acts 10, the Ephesian "John the Baptist"followers in Acts 19. The Christian Church- Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed & Sectarian- has overwhelmingly taught either the necessity or the desirability of water baptism.
Then there is this guy, who may perhaps be trying to justify not getting baptized, or is part of some hyper-dispensational or ultra-spiritual sect that looks down on physical rites.
Don’t know him too well, but to me, he has that hyper-dispensational smell all over him. Not gonna go there, however! I wouldn’t even bother with him, but, I’m particularly offended by dispensationalists.
First, there is a MAJOR problem with what you have quoted here, the “you” of your first clause, “John baptized YOU with water,” is not there in the Greek or the KJV. I don’t know who put that there, but it makes a substantial change to the point that Jesus is making, which is the simple declaration that John had baptized with water.
Secondly, it is clear from the conjunction ὅτι that Acts 1:4-5 is a single sentence, and should be interpreted together, like this:
Acts 1:4-5 While he was with them, he declared, “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard about from me, for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
It is very clear from the context (“wait there [Jerusalem]”, “not many days from now”) that Jesus was referring to a specific, one-time event that was later narrated in Acts 2 as the Pentecost account.
Thirdly, I would say that the μὲν … δέ construction here is contrastive rather than adversative. (In fact, there exists a stronger adversative conjunction in Greek, ἀλλά, which means, “but, but rather, etc.” Ironically, this is the conjunction used in 1:4, “Do not leave Jerusalem, but (ἀλλά) wait there, etc,” indicating a true alternative or “replacement” as you say.)
Unfortunately, the μὲν … δέ construction is somewhat flexible, ranging from a true adversative, to something much weaker: “Sometimes the combination μὲν . . . δέ does not emphasize a contrast, but separates one thought from another in a series, so that they may be easily distinguished.” (BDAG 629-630 s.v. μὲν) Context is the most important clue.
The statement in Acts 1:4-5 should be interpreted in light of the entire Luke-Acts narrative. Consider this:
Luke 3:16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but one more powerful than I am is coming—I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (The contrast here is also μὲν … δέ)
And, as FriarTed pointed out, there were many baptisms with water even after Pentecost, showing that the author of Luke-Acts did not mean Acts 1:5 to indicate the replacement of water baptism. The broader context is the key.
Finally, your friend’s case is devastated by the declaration of Peter, concerning the Gentiles who had received the Spirit: speaking in tongues and praising God: “No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” (Acts 10:47) Thus, in this case, where the events happened “backwards” (gift of the Spirit first, then water baptism), it shows that water baptism is not made obsolete or “replaced” by the Holy Spirit, but it is still expected.
I wouldn’t even bother with him, but, I’m particularly offended by dispensationalists.