What is Regeneration?

[Guest]

Proper exegesis of this text really isn't that difficult but VERY confusing if deriving understanding from the English because of word order. And there is a HUGE problem with understanding the text because there is a "textual variant" that must be dealt with.

πρὸς means to or toward (or course To is implied and signifies a "direct discourse" )

ἐπὶ here just means "in" or "onto" you are just stating the authority of the baptism derives in Christ.

εἰς can be taken as a causal/purpose or a "ground or basis" for something.

From what I see, it strongly suggests it is the CAUSE or purpose. To use it as a ground clause really makes mincemeat of the context for reasons that go beyond what time allows me to get into.


I saw after looking at the original manuscripts that the most reliable ones have a personal pronoun "your" after "sins" in the genitive. Again after in the GREEK, to put it in English it would be before sins "your sins".

The reason why it is not in some of the later manuscripts is due to "scholarly familiarity" which is a higher criticism term for "they are used to certain verses and while copying they put in what they were thinking and not what was on the paper in which they were copying (because they were familiar with certain verses that were parallel with what they were writing and thus "skipped over a pronoun".) This is the case here, examples: Matthew 26:28; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; and 24:47.19

The reason for knowing this? In EVERY case where Luke USES a personal pronoun in the genitive (which is the case in this verse) with this construct, he uses an article (the). You don't see it in the English, it would be here [for forgiveness of THE sins]

The article is in ALL the manuscripts, namely those with the pronoun AND those without the pronoun. This is an extremely strong case that the most reliable sources are correct and the pronoun should be apart of the text.

I see you use the King James (New) This explains why you don't have the pronoun (your) before sins. The King James translators didn't have the most reliable manuscripts at the time and this is a perfect example of why the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are more reliable than the Receptus.

Why did I explain all of that higher criticism? Because remember when I said syntax and GRAMMAR tell you what the writer means? It does so by the rules that Greek uses in order to understand the intention of the writer. The pronoun that is left out in the KJV is the key to understanding the text.

The verb repent is in the plural second person
The verb baptize is in the SINGULAR, THIRD person
In the phrase "every one of you" the pronoun is in the SINGULAR 3rd person(Thus referring to WHO must be baptized)
In the phrase "for the forgiveness of YOUR sins" the pronoun is in the PLURAL with the verb being second person.

The phrase is congruent to the verb that has to agree to the with the following PRONOUN. In other words the pronoun refers back NOT TO WHAT IS IMMEDIATE like in the English but to what it MATCHES with in gender and number AND (in direct discourse 'which this is') it must agree with PERSON.

If you look back back now at the number of the pronouns and the verbs you will see what Peter was referring his phrases to. Peter used a "chiasm". So in the Greek it is understood that:

Repent [second person plural]
be baptized [third person singular]
each [third person singular] of you
for the remission of your [second person plural] sins

Why did Peter "chop up" his sentence? Actually he didn't, it seems chopped up to us because of the way we derive meaning in English by word order. The beauty of Greek is it is not derived by order but by matching grammatical signifiers enabling one to change word order for EMPHASIS.

Thus Peter by word order placed the imperative to repent first to stress the importance of repentance but left the phrase that describes the purpose of it at the end of the sentence.

[Guest]

J.Edwards,

Thanks for your reply on the Greek of Acts 2:38. I am still pondering your answer.

Back to regeneration. I am still interested in your (or Bob or anyone else) answers to the questions I asked in my initial post on this thread. Seems they are being studiously ignored, but perhaps that is just my imagination, or maybe they aren't interesting. And I have another one:

Regeneration or being begotten/born of God is an analogy in certain ways to a natural begetting/birth of a child. From the moment the natural child is conceived, it is a child of the parents. Are we, from the moment of regeneration, or the new birth, a child of God? If so, and regeneration precedes faith, then we are His child apart from faith, at least for some period of time?

I see Peter seems to have a view of the matter that conflicts with your understanding of 1 John 5:1:

1 Peter 1:23-25 (New American Standard Bible)

23. for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

24.For,
"ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS,
AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS.
THE GRASS WITHERS,
AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF,
25. BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER "
And this is the word which was preached to you.


Which echoes Paul; "the Gospel is the power unto salvation".

Also elsewhere John says:

John 1:11-13 (New American Standard Bible)

11. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

13. who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

So here John informs us that those who received Him, those who believe in His name, have been given the right to become what they were not before: His children, born from above.

[Guest]

J. Edwards,

That was an awesome explanation and breakdown of the greek for that verse. Thanks for taking the time to explain it in such a scholarly manner. Even a non-greek person such as myself was able to follow your description very well. Thanks.

Doug