Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Acts 2:38 – For the Forgiveness of Sins
Ironically and sadly, this verse, which is part of the very first explanation of God’s grace to all mankind after Jesus’ ascension, is also one of theologies greatest debated texts. Why?
One way to answer that question would be because of prejudicial thinking. That leads to another way of answering that question – because of one little word.
The prejudicial thinking is the theological conclusion that faith cannot and does not involve obedience before God credits us with righteousness (Romans 4). Biblically speaking, not all “works” are the same. But what all works do have in common is that none of them earn us our salvation. If God says that He will bless us if we have enough faith to obey Him, then obey Him we must and obedience then is nothing more than faith (Hebrews 5:9). Why? We are simply trusting God’s word that He will bless us if we do what He says.
The prejudicial thinking then leads to a controversy concerning a little word. That little word, eis (1519) is one, if not the most, debated prepositions in all of Scripture. It is sad that such a simple verse is so disagreed upon.
How does baptism in water – which is obedience – relate to “the forgiveness of your sins?” Does it precede forgiveness (i.e. baptism unto – in order to receive – forgiveness of your sins) or follow after (i.e. baptism because of the forgiveness of your sins)?
Following are some quotes, with the arguments intact, against the necessity of baptism (a position contrary to my understanding of the Bible):
“Some would make this expression equivalent to the expression in Mt.26:28, where the same words `for the remission of sins’ are found. This assumes that the preposition `for’ (Gr. eis) possesses the same meaning wherever it occurs. Here eis expresses either the `ground or basis’ for the baptism, namely, the remission of sins consequent upon repentance and believing upon the name of Christ, or far better, the result of the real (not ritual) baptism attending the repentance and faith upon Christ. In Mt.26:28 eis expresses the aim or purpose of the death of Christ. When eis expresses purpose (as Mt.26:28), grammarians term this the telic use of eis. J.W. Dale asserts `The telic use of eis with baptidzo (baptize) may, very confidently, be declared to have no existence, whether in the Scriptures or out of the Scriptures’ (Christic Baptism, p.144). In other words, Dale asserts that the proposition (sic.) eis is never used to express purpose in conjunction with the verb `baptize’ in either Classical or Biblical (Koine) Greek….Dale asserts `it is impossible for eis to reach over baptized and receive a telic (i.e. expressing purpose – PDH) character from Repent exclusively.’ (p.139). Thus the grammar forbids the notion that repentance is `in order to the remission of your sins….’ The preposition eis may mean `because of,’ as at Mt.12:41. It may also means `as a sign or profession of,’ as at Mt.3:11; 28:19; 1 Cor.1:13; 10:2. Notice that in the last four passages cited, the preposition eis occurs in the same grammatical construction and with reference to the same subject, baptism. The preposition eis may be understood here to mean `the ground or basis of’ (as in Mt.10:41; 12:41), or it may legitimately be understood to indicate the result of believing upon the name of Jesus Christ. (Jerome H. Smith, ed., The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, pp.1236)
Thayer, a respected lexicographer, gives the following information on the telic use of eis – (pp.184-185).
B. Used Metaphorically.
B.II eis after words indicating motion or direction.
B.II.3. It denotes the end.
B.II 3a. The end to which a thing reaches or extends, i.e. measure or degree
B.II 3b. The end which a thing is adapted to attain.
B.II 3c. The end which one has in view, i.e. object, purpose.
B.II 3cd (delta). eis ti, indicating purpose, often depends not on any one preceding word with which it coalesces into a single phrase, but has the force of a telic clause added to the already complete preceding statement.
B.II d. The end by which a thing is completed, i.e. the result or effect.
Forgetting theology and simply looking at the definition of eis as provided above, we can see the normal, unbiased way of understanding and interpreting that little preposition leads one to understand that baptism’s purpose, that the end of baptism, is forgiveness of sins for no other reason than God said so through the Holy Spirit using Peter’s mouth.
Let’s give another quote denying the necessity of baptism:
“For the remission of sins: that the sins really remitted on the exercise of `repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,’ may be formally and in symbol remitted in baptism.” (J.W. Pendleton, Brief Notes on the New Testament, pp.312-313)
This argument by J.W. Pendleton has no basis upon anything other than a theological bias. He is in effect arguing, “the text does not mean what it says, here, let me rewrite it for you.”
This verse has nothing to do with water baptism. Why is it that people equate “baptism” with John’s rite all the time? What ever happened to Jesus’ baptism which is one of the heart when we identify with his death and burial in our inner being. It is after this baptism of the heart by Jesus that we are saved and receive the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, an outward work is required for our salvation (Holy Spirit is the sign)and receipt of the Holy Spirit which is heresy.
Thank you for responding. Considering that Peter also said, “Can anyone withhold water and prevent these people from being baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47), I have no doubt that the baptism in Acts 2:38 involved water.