ACTS 2:38
FOR
(ei"
- eis) THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
Rationale for the Topic
This study is
written in response to some evangelical attempts to reinterpret Acts
2:38
All major translations interpret this as
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ for
the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit."
Some evangelicals
would reinterpret this text to read “Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the
forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit”.
Bibliography
on Baptism
We recommend highly the following two
studies on Baptism
:
Everett Ferguson,
Baptism in the Early Church: History,
Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries,
Eerdmans, 2009.
This is comprehensive and outstanding study buy an internationally
acclaimed scholar.
G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament,
Eerdmans, 1962.
Beasley-Murray is a distinguished Baptist scholar who has
taught at some of the finest Baptist universities and seminaries.
Beasley-Murray was professor emeritus at Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and a former principal
of Spurgeon’s College, London. Beasley-Murray discusses all of
the major baptism texts in the New Testament, including Acts 2:38
and the other baptism texts in Acts.
Robert H.
Stein,
"Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament", is found in
the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, vol. 2, Spring
1988, pp. 6-17.
This is an article by a distinguished Baptist scholar. Stein's
conclusions are in keeping wth the study gby Beasley-Murray.
Extracts from this can be found in a link form
the parent page to this study of Acts 2:38. This is an
excellent work on Salvation in the New Testament.
Cottrell, Baptism, A Biblical
Study, College Press, 1989.
Our Response to this Evangelical Reinterpretation of Acts 2:38
This study explores
the meaning of Peter’s response in Acts 2:38 to the Jews gathered in
Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. After preaching a sermon on
the Holy Spirit and Jesus’ Death and Resurrection based on Joel 2:28
and Psalm 16, Peter concluded “Let all the house of Israel
therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ,
this Jesus whom you crucified.” Luke continues “Now
when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter
and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
We can safely assume that at this point these Jews believed in
Jesus; that he was both Lord and their promised Messiah, that they
had crucified him, and that God had raised him from the dead.
Peter responded telling them to “Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your
sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.
It is clear from
Luke’s account of this sermon that these Jews really believed in
Jesus. When they asked what they should do, Peter did not
respond, “You do not have to do anything, you now believe and are
therefore saved”! His instructions were “repent and be
baptized every one of you.” But why should they be
baptized? Quite clearly his answer gave the reason, “for
the forgiveness of sins.” Luke tells us that Peter then
encouraged them “with many other words and exhorted them, saying,
“Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” The result
was that “those who received his word were baptized, and there
were added that day about three thousand souls.”
This brief account of the baptism of the 3000 on Pentecost is not
difficult to understand. They heard Peter’s preaching
concerning Jesus, they believed in Jesus, they asked what
they should then do, they were told to repent and every
one of them to be baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of
their sins. They were then encouraged to save
themselves from their crooked generation. They responded in
faith by being baptized.
Some evangelical
Christians have difficulty reconciling this brief narrative with
their doctrine of salvation by faith only. They
consider baptism a work of obedience in response to
salvation, and not faith responding for salvation.
There is no question regarding the fundamental Christian doctrine of
justification or salvation by grace through faith in Jesus!
This is deeply imbedded in New Testament and Christian doctrine.
The question is how baptism fits into this equation. The
evangelical response is that baptism is a work of obedience
experienced after salvation, Baptism in their view is
because of the salvation already received, and in response to
that salvation. Baptism in Peter’s view in Acts 2:38 is the
result of faith and repentance, and is for or unto
salvation. The error in evangelical views of baptism is that
baptism is not simply a work of obedience because of, or
after salvation, but is in fact faith expressing itself in response
to grace and for
salvation. This is clearly what Peter laid out in Acts 2:38.
Stressing that baptism is not a work we engage in, but that it is
faith in the working of God, Paul in Col 2:12 explains that baptism
is faith in the working of God. Baptism is not faith in
our working as an act of obedience, but faith in God’s working!
Baptism and faith are both “acts” we must
engage in personally. Faith is as much a work as is
baptism! No one believes for us, we must believe or have faith
in Jesus for ourselves. Likewise no one is baptized for
us, we must submit to being baptized! Faith and baptism
are therefore acts we must experience and engage in, but neither
faith nor baptism are acts or works which earn salvation.
Salvation is a gift of God’s grace, and baptism is faith responding
to God’s grace. We respond to the preaching of grace and
Christ by believing the preached message. Faith consequently
is something we do in response to the message of grace. Faith
it is not something we do that earns us salvation! Faith is an
appropriate response to God’s grace. Likewise, baptism is not
a work that we do that earns salvation. It is an appropriate
response in faith to God’s saving grace. This is what Peter
explained in 1 Pet 3:21 when he discussed Noah and Christian
baptism. After stating that Noah was “saved through water”
Peter added, “ Baptism, which corresponds to this, now
saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an
appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection
of Jesus Christ…” Baptism is the response of a good
conscience in faith to God’s call for faith, and as Peter explains
in both Acts 2:38 and 1 Pet 3:21, baptism is for the purpose of
forgiveness and salvation. Faith and
baptism are intricately connected as two poles in a continuum and
not as two separate points.
The minute you separate faith from
baptism you end up in a situation of no real faith! The minute
you separate baptism from faith you likewise end up in a situation
of no real faith! (Refer to the article by Prof Robert H.
Stein on this point.)
Whichever way you approach salvation, it is a matter of God’s saving
grace and not our effort, either in having faith or in being
baptized. Salvation is always a matter of God’s saving and
powerful grace. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that
baptism is not a work we do, but something that is done to us!
Baptism is always expressed in the passive voice and not the active
voice. We submit in faith
to being baptized, and it is God who works salvation in
our submission to baptism!
The result of the difficulty experienced by evangelicals to
understand faith and baptism as equal responses to God’s saving
grace is seen clearly in their attempts to
interpret Acts 2:38 in a manner that makes baptism the result of
salvation rather than faith leading to salvation. We
then encounter the following interpretation of Acts 2:38,
“Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because
of the forgiveness of sins…” rather than as Peter clearly
charged “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
for (unto) the forgiveness of sins…” The
translation for the forgiveness of sins or
unto the remission of sins
is the translation found in all major English translations of Acts
2:38 (KJV, ASV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV).
In similar
fashion those adopting this false solution to Acts 2:38 reinterpret
the final statement of the Nicean Creed to fit into their own
doctrine of atonement. The Nicean Creed reads
“We acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins”.
In
similar fashion to acts 2:38, we find this reinterpretation of the
Nicean Creed,
“We acknowledge one baptism because of
remission of sins.” We set the words
unto and because of in bold type since it
is this point with which we take issue. We reject this
tendency to change the reading of Acts 2:38 and the Nicean Creed to
fit a particular doctrine of salvation by faith only!
In light of these problems, this study of Acts
2:38 is written with the purpose of examining the meaning of the
Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38. We will also
examine and the implications of this for New Testament theology.
Since many
evangelicals follow the proposals of Julius R. Mantey in regard to
Acts 2:38 and his preference for because of in place of
for or unto, much of the following discussion is focused
on Mantey’s thought as set out specifically in Dana and Mantey, A
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. We will notice
that Mantey falls into the same error as some modern evangelical
groups in that he interprets eis
according to his personal doctrine of atonement rather than
according to normal Greek syntax and use.
The Translation of Acts 2:38 in the
Major English Translations
KJV 1611
38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
ASV 1901
38And
Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of
your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
RSV 1973/77
38 Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and
you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NASV 1977
38 Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NIV 1984
38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NRSV 1989
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins
may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NASV 1995
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit.
Not
one of the recognized major translations translates the Greek
eis
as because!
The question we are
addressing is “On what grounds do some
translate or interpret the Greek eis, for, as
because?”
The Meaning of the Greek Preposition
Eis
1.
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich
A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature,
1957.
This is a standard and widely recognized Greek
English Lexicon (Dictionary).
Arndt and Gingrich list over 20 different uses of
eis.
The leading comment regarding this preposition is
that eis with the
accusative
noun (simply put, the direct object in a
sentence), indicates motion into a
thing, or into its
immediate vicinity.
They suggest the following ways in which eis
can be translated:
a.
Of place, into, to,
toward
b.
With verbs of sending,
to, into, among
c.
It can simply mean
direction,
toward something
d.
Of time, to the end
e.
Indicating degree,
fully
f.
Indicating goal, to,
toward
g.
The result of an action,
into, to, so that
h.
To denote purpose, in
order to, to
i.
With the dative noun,
for
j.
They list one reading as
controversial, namely because, and indicate
that this possibility derives from J. R. Mantey, of which something
will be said below!
k.
Regarding Acts 2:38, they indicate that
it denotes purpose,
in order
to, so that.
2.
The Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel)
TNDT lists several categories in which eis must be
considered.
a.
Spatial, cosmic and
psychological
b.
Temporal
c.
Modal
d.
In logical connection
stating reason
e.
With
a noun or pronominal accusative,
a final sense
f.
With
Personal reference, with reference
to
The important point
emphasized here is that the noun or pronominal
accusative
used with eis indicates a final
sense or result.
In Greek the
accusative indicates
the limitation, result, direction,
or end of the verbal action.
(Simply put, pronominal refers to a pronoun. A pronominal
accusative is a pronoun serving as a direct object.)
3. The Greek Preposition Eis and Greek
Syntax
(Syntax refers to how words work together in
Greek)
In Greek, prepositions work in conjunction with
nouns and other grammatical
forms such as the infinitive.
Dana and Mantey, A Manual
Grammar of the Greek New Testament,
1927/1957, p. 103 states that eis
occurs more than 1,700 times in the Greek
New Testament, and only with the accusative
form of noun.
Cf. also Blass, Debrunner, Funk, A Grammar
of New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, 1961.
Dana and Mantey argue that
the fundamental compositional meaning
of
eis
is
into, in, to go
inside.
They demonstrate that in conjunction
with the accusative noun
the resultant
meanings of eis are into, unto, to, for.
Several remote meanings
are offered such as
upon, against, among, with
respect to, in reference to.
At this point Mantey argues for an interpretation
that some (Arndt and
Gingrich) have termed a
controversial meaning, implying that it is
not
generally recognized as such by grammarians!
Mantey argues for a
translation of eis which
might read as
because!
We will discuss Mantey’s controversial and
unusual interpretation in detail
below, demonstrating that
it is
forced to meet Mantey’s doctrinal stance on
baptism and salvation, and not based on the
normal meaning as used in the
Greek of the New Testament.
4.
Greek Grammars on
Eis
and the Accusative Case of the Noun.
Most Greek grammars indicate that
the accusative case,
simply stated, limits
or
describes extension. By this they mean that
the accusative indicates the limit or direction of the verbal action.
In relation to the preposition
eis, the
accusative case indicates the direction or limitation of the
preposition eis. This can be learned from the
following standard Greek Grammars.
H. P. V. Nunn, A Syntax of New Testament
Greek,
W. H. Davis, Beginner’s Grammar of the
Greek New Testament,
James Hope Moulton and Henry G. Meecham, An
Introduction to the
Study of New Testament Greek.
Blass, Debrunner, Funk, A Grammar of
New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, 1961.
Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar
of the Greek New Testament, 1927/1957, pp. 91 ff state that
the accusative case relates primarily to
action, and indicates direction, extent, or end.
Dana and Mantey add, “The accusative signifies
that the object referred to is considered as the point toward
which something is proceeding: that it is the end of the action
or motion described…The
accusative
embraces three ideas: the end, or
direction, or extent of motion or action…The
root meaning of the accusative is limitation.”
4.
Discussion on Mantey’s
Arguments for Translating Eis as Because
In this section we examine reasons why Mantey translates
eis
as because rather than as for, toward, unto,
with reference to in the normal manner set out in his own
Grammar.
a.
As indicated above,
none of the major English translations
deviates
from the normal
translation of
eis!
b.
Mantey’s discussion of the
normal translations of eis in his grammar
are excellent and
to the point. Eis indicates direction and with
the
accusative it
indicates
limitation, not source or origin!
c.
The
major reason for Mantey seeking a different translation from the
norm is his
difficulty in taking Acts 2:38 at face value!
“Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for
the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit.”
d.
We quote Mantey’s
argument on Acts 2:38 in detail:
“When one considers in Acts 2:38
repentance as self-renunciation
and baptism as
public expression of self –surrender and self
dedication to
Christ,
which significance it certainly had in the
first
century
(Italics IAF), the expression
ei" afesin
twn amartiwn
umwn
may mean for the purpose of the remission
of sins.
But if one
stresses baptism,
without its early Christian import, as a ceremonial
means of salvation,
he does violence to Christianity as a whole, for one
of its striking
distinctions from Judaism and
Paganism is that it is a
religion of
salvation by faith while all others teach salvation by works…”
We pause here to comment on Mantey’s argument at this point:
a.
Mantey points out that
in the context of the first century
ei" afesin
may
mean for the purpose of the
remission of sins!
Why if it
could and most likely should be translated in this manner in
the first
century should it not be translated in the same manner in the
20th
or 21st centuries?
The
reason is that it does not fit Mantey’s and some evangelical 20th
century doctrinal positions!
b.
The translation
for the purpose of the remission of sins
does
violence,
not to the remaining teachings on baptism in the New
Testament,
but
only to Mantey’s doctrinal position.
c.
Mantey’s description of
Paganism as teaching salvation by works
may be
correct, but his understanding of Judaism is faulty when he
maintains
that Judaism taught salvation by works! (Refer to recent
studies on
Judaism by E. P. Sanders, W. D. Davies, et al. who argue
correctly
that 2nd
Temple Judaism at the time of Christ did not see
justification
as a result of works, but of faith.)
d. Furthermore,
since the New Testament apparently does teach
salvation or
the washing away of sin as a result of baptism (see Acts
22:16, 1 Pet
3:21) then we must assume, according to Mantey, that
the New
Testament teaches salvation by works! However, this does
not follow.
What is defective is Mantey’s understanding of
the
relationship
of faith and baptism in the New Testament (see G. R.
Beasley-Murray,
Baptism in the New Testament for an excellent
theology of
faith and baptism, and Robert H. Stein, "Baptism and
becoming a
Christian in the New Testament", Southern Baptist
Journal of
Theology vol. 2, Spring 1988, pp. 6-17. Both argue
correctly
from Gal 3:26 and Col 1:11 ff that faith and baptism are
intrinsically
connected and should not be treated as two independent
practices.)
We return now to Mantey’s argument:
“The sentence
metanohsen ei" to khrugma Iwna
in Mt. 12:41 and Lk.
12:32 is
forceful evidence
for a causal use of this preposition. What led
to their
repentance? Of course it was Jonah’s preaching.”
Before we continue, let us examine Mantey’s
argument on Mt 12:41 which
he considers
forceful evidence for a causal use
of eis!
The RSV translates this as “for they
repented
at
the preaching of
Jonah”.
The KJV translates this as “because they repented
at the preaching of
Jonas”.
The ASV 1901 likewise translated this as “for they
repented
at
the
preaching of Jonah”.
The NASV likewise translated this as “they repented
at the preaching of
Jonah”.
We can safely assume that the eis in these translations should be
translated as at!
However, adopting Mantey’s own category of “Remote meanings” for eis
he suggests “(5) With respect to,
with reference to” as possible
meanings for eis.
In this case we can translate Mt 12:41 as “they repented
with reference to,
or with respect to, the
preaching of Jonah”!
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich also suggest that when eis is used
with a person or thing that eis can
be translated as “with respect
or reference to” the person or thing.
In Mt 12:41, they “repented with respect to
the preaching of Jonah!"
The forceful evidence assumed by
Mantey is not as forceful as he would have us believe! In fact it
is no argument at all for a causal because
as Mantey claims!
Again, we return to Mantey:
“Mt 3:11 furnishes further evidence:
egw men umas
baptizw en udati
ei" metanoian.
Did John baptize that they might repent, or because of
repentance? If the former we
have no further Scriptural confirmation of it. If
the latter, his practice was
confirmed and followed by the apostles… In
connection with this verse we have
the testimony of a first century writer to
the effect that John the Baptist
baptized people only after they had repented.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews,
book 18, chapter 5, section 2…”
Once again, Mantey fails to permit the translation
to work within his own
category of definitions, that
is,
eis being understood as in reference to.
In
this case the translation of John's
statement would be “I baptize you in water
with
reference to (your) repentance!”
However, the NASV translates
Mt 3:11 as “I baptize you with water
for
repentance.”
The KJV translates this as “I
indeed baptize you with water
unto
repentance.”
The RSV and NIV
translate this as “I baptize you with water
for
repentance.”
Our conclusion is that Mantey
has proven nothing at all!
There are
categories within Mantey's own accepted possibilities for eis
that
would be suitable for Mt 3:11 without
resorting to categories not normally
accepted, yet which fit one’s own
doctrinal biases.
His forceful
evidence falls far short of being either forceful or
convincing!
Every argument Mantey has proposed can be
better explained from within
his own “Resultant” or “Remote”
meanings,
without resorting to a
“controversial” translation,
because of
because that fits his personal doctrine
of atonement better!
There is, however, yet a far greater problem for Mantey’s some
evangelical’s
proposals!
This has to do
with how we use Scripture and how we determine doctrine!
Mantey reads Scripture through the lens of
preferred doctrine, rather than
determining doctrine through the lens
of Scripture!
Do we interpret Scripture from within our doctrine, or do we
interpret our
doctrine from within Scripture?
Mantey wants us
to interpret Scripture so it agrees with a particular doctrine
he holds dear!
However, we
do not interpret Scripture according to our doctrine, but we
interpret our doctrine according to
Scripture.
What Mantey and similar
evangelical arguments do is called Deductive
Theology, as opposed to Inductive
Theology, in which they interpret things,
even Scripture from within their own
doctrine, or to be in agreement with
their own doctrine.
In this system they move from
doctrine to Scripture.
We might call Mantey’s approach
Dogmatic Theology rather than Biblical
Theology.
Biblical theology works
differently!
In Biblical theology we move
Inductively from Scripture to doctrine and
interpret doctrine from within
Scripture.
5.
Scriptures with Similar
Eis
Constructions to Acts 2:38
There are a number of New
Testament texts related to baptism and
forgiveness which are not translated because, but retain the
for, into, or unto
translation.
We will examine several of these texts in which eis is
in a parallel construction
with Acts 2:38, and where eis was preceded by the verb form
baptized and
was followed by the accusative case.
The
purpose of this section of the study is to demonstrate that there
are many
Greek constructions in the New Testament
that are parallel to Acts 2:38 where
none of the major translations have been
compelled to follow Mantey’s
controversial handling of Acts 2:38.
The only reason Mantey and evangelicals
translate the eis in Acts 2:38 as
because of is that the rules of Greek Syntax which require a
rendering of for
or unto
would violate their specific doctrine!
We stress again, that doctrine should be shaped by Scripture, and
not
Scripture by doctrine!
a.
We begin by examining Matt
26:28 since it contains wording and syntax similar to Acts 2:38.
In order to demonstrate the parallel nature of this text with Acts
2:38 we will quote both Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38.
(For those not familiar with the Greek text we will also demonstrate
the parallel nature of the texts by
highlighting
in yellow the parallel words in the
Greek text.)
Matt 26:28 -
tou
to gar estin to
aima mou th" diaqhkh" to peri pollwn ekcunnovmenon
ei" afesin amartiwn.
Acts 2:38 -
baptisqhtw ekasto"
umwn epi twn
onomati Ihsou
Cristo
ei" afesin twn amartiwn.
Matt 26:28 “this is my
blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many
for the
forgiveness of sins”
Acts 2:38 “be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins.”
None of the major translators translate Matt
26:28 as Mantey would have us do with Acts 2:38, “this is my
blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many
because of the forgiveness of sins”.
Jesus’ blood had yet to be shed. His blood was to be shed in
the very near future for
the forgiveness of sins.
Jesus is not saying that his blood was shed because of
forgiveness, but
for the forgiveness of sins!
The sense of Jesus’ statement was that his blood was to be shed
with respect to or in regard to the forgiveness of sins.
There is no need to translate this text other than according to the
normal criteria for standard Greek grammar and Syntax (and in
accordance with Mantey’s own primary criteria), which is what the
major translations have done.
Neither is there any need to translate Acts 2:38 as Mantey would.
On both occasions the eis should be translated
for the forgiveness of sins.
b.
Rom 6:3: “Do you not know
that all of us who have been baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into
his death?”
h agnoeite
oti, osoi ebaptisqhmen ei"
Criston Ihsoun,
ei"
ton
qavnaton
autou
ebaptivsqhmen.
Notice
that as in Acts 2:38 the eis follows a baptism verb,
baptized, and is
followed by an accusative
noun,
death.
The natural translation of this text calls for the English
preposition
into as
in the major translations, and not because.
The construction of the clause closely parallels Acts 2:38!
c.
Gal 3:26 “for in Christ
Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27
For as many of you as were baptized into
Christ have put on Christ.”
Gal 3:26
Pante" gar
uioi
qeou
este dia th"
pistew" en Cristw
Ihsou,
27osoi
gar ei" Criston ebaptisqhte,
Criston
enedusasqe.
(It is interesting
to note that the Greek does not have a period following
faith as in the KJV and RSV, but a comma as in the NIV.)
Notice again that the preposition eis
is preceded by the baptism verb,
and followed by a noun in the
accusative case,
Christ. (In this case the
word order is a little different for the baptism word follows
eis. We are
reminded that Greek does not follow the English conventions of word
order, but changes word order for emphasis.)
Here the preposition eis is correctly translated and
interpreted as into,
not because.
Notice also that baptism is considered by
Paul to be a matter of faith, not
works!
We become children of God through faith,
for as many as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The Greek
particle or
conjunction gar,
for, indicates the reason or ground for their
becoming
children of God through faith. (Dana and Mantey on
gar,
“Gar
may
express a ground or reason, an explanation, a confirmation or
assurance…”).
Christian baptism may not be removed from the
faith dynamic and
considered a work without doing it and faith an injustice.
Baptism is a faith principle, not a work
principle, just as repentance and
confession of faith are faith principles and not work principles.
In fact,
Paul explains in Col 2:12 that baptism is faith in the working
of God!
Col 3:12 “and you were buried with him in baptism, in which
you were
also raised with him through faith in the working of God…”
We recommend that the reader refer to the work by Beasley-Murray on
Baptism and the article by Stein, both referenced in the
Bibliography.
Both Beasley-Murray and Stein argue that in Gal 3:26 and Col 1:11
ff that
to separate faith and baptism into two doctrines, independent of
one
another is a mistake.
d. Rom
10:10 is a fascinating case for the
accusative following eis in
justification
and salvation. The construction is
almost parallel to Acts
2:38 where forgiveness stands
for salvation!
RSV “ For man believes with his heart (eis)
and so
is justified, and he
confesses with his lips (eis) and
so
is saved.” (Resultant meaning of eis.)
ASV “for with the heart a person believes, (eis)
resulting in
righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, (eis)
resulting in
salvation.”
KJV “For with the heart man believeth
unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto
salvation.”
The NIV is somewhat different, yet still conveys the same
meaning, “For it
is with your heart that you believe and
are justified, and it is with your
mouth that you confess and are
saved.”
Greek “kardia
gar pisteuetai
ei" dikaiosunhn, stomati de
omologeitai
ei"
swthrian.”
Notice that in each
case above the eis points forward to
the accusative
nouns following, that is,
righteousness and
salvation!
Presumably Mantey and evangelicals who follow Mantey’s views of
Christian doctrine stressing salvation by faith only would
have no
problem with the first part of this verse! Using the ASV,
“For with the
heart man believes resulting in righteousness.” No
problem here since
salvation is by faith, the faith not works principle! But
with the second
part, “with the mouth he confesses, (eis) resulting in
salvation” they
should have problems since confessing in their understanding would
be a
work! In this case they would need to translate the
second clause “with
the mouth he confesses,
because of salvation”!
However, by doing this they would destroy the syntactical
parallelism Paul
has used to make his point.
The only way around Mantey’s problem is to argue that confessing
faith is
a faith principle and not a work principle!
However, if confessing with
the mouth that Jesus is Lord is a faith principle, why is
confessing ones
faith in baptism a work principle?
We stress here that believing in Jesus Christ is
something we do, as is
repenting of ones sins something we do, and as is
confessing ones faith
something we do, yet they are considered by evangelicals faith
principles
and not work principles! Likewise we stress that
baptism is something
we surrender to as a faith principle and not something we do to
merit or
earn forgiveness. (We recommend that the reader refer to
Stein's article
on Baptism where he makes the observation that faith, repentance,
confession, and baptism are all faith principles.)
e.
In a section above we
considered Mantey’s arguments on Matt 3:11 and
found them
faulty. In similar fashion we examine Mk 1:4.
RSV
“John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism
of
repentance
for the
forgiveness of sins.”
KJV
“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism
of
repentance
for the
remission of sins.”
NASV
“John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism
of
repentance
for the
forgiveness of sins.”
NIV
“And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a
baptism of
repentance
for the
forgiveness of sins.”
Greek
NT
egeneto Iwannh
»o¼ baptizwn en th
erhmw kai khrusswn
baptisma metanoia"
ei" afesin amartiwn.”
Notice that John was preaching a
baptism
of repentance, that is, a
baptism
characterized by repentance (the genitive construction of
repentance
provides the
of
repentance), and that this baptism was
for
(eis) the
forgiveness of sins.
Notice also
that the Greek construction
ei"
afesin
amartiwn
(for
the
forgiveness
of sins)
here in Mk 1:4 is exactly parallel to that
of Acts 2:38,
ei"
afesin twn amartiwn
(for the forgiveness of sins)
other than for
the presence
of the definite article
twn
in Acts 2:38.
Now if we
were to follow Mantey in Acts 2:38 in Mk 1:4, then the
translation
would be, “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness
preaching a
baptism of repentance
because of the forgiveness of
sins”!
We know from
our study of the Gospels that John would not baptize
anyone unless
they demonstrated repentance!
Mantey’s interpretation
would,
therefore, have John baptizing unrepentant people
because of
forgiveness
already received before they had in fact repented!
This implies a confused theology! We
then have people baptized
because
they had been forgiven
before they had repented!
This does not fit in with
Peter’s
instruction in Acts 2:38 that the believing Jews must repent and
then be
baptized!
What Mark was
implying was that John was preaching a baptism
for
the
forgiveness
of sins, the baptism being
characterized by repentance! We
should note
here that
the nominative noun
preceding for
forgiveness is
baptisma,
baptism, repentance is a
genitive noun modifying the
nominative
noun baptism, so it was not John
preaching
repentance for
forgiveness
but baptism for forgiveness!
Likewise, in
Acts 2:38 Peter was preaching a baptism
characterized by
faith and
repentance
for
the forgiveness of sins.
Luke’s
parallel statement regarding John’s preaching (Lk 3:3) follows the
same pattern
as does Mark, “and he went into all the region about the
Jordan,
preaching a baptism
of repentance
for the forgiveness of sins.”
6.
Some Additional
Scriptures on Baptism and Salvation that Teach that Baptism has a
Major Role in Salvation.
a.
Mk 16:15, 16:
“Go into all the world and preach the
gospel to the whole creation.
16 He
who believes and is baptized will be saved;
but he who does not believe
will be condemned.”
This text has been contested by some on the
ground that the ending of
Mark’s Gospel is uncertain. Whether
one accepts the text as original to
Mark or not, most acknowledge the
apostolicity of the text and consider
the teaching of the text to be consistent
with New Testament doctrine.
The text clearly connects belief and baptism as conditions of
salvation.
Some evangelicals argue that since the second clause of the verse
does
not expressly mention
not baptized, for example, “but he who does not
believe and is not
baptized will be condemned”
negates the strong
connection of baptism to the first clause
believe.
Typical of this is a statement in an
article by the NT Restoration
Foundation “Notice, however, those who
Jesus said would be
condemned: "whoever does not believe." No
mention was made of not
being baptized. The emphasis is on
unbelief, not baptism.
Condemnation comes as a result of unbelief,
not the lack of any ritual
activity.” The article continues,
“Indeed, it is unthinkable that anyone
would believe in Jesus and refuse to be
baptized”!
Did the NT
Restoration Foundation miss the point? By their own
confession it is unthinkable that
one who does not believe will want to be
baptized! However, the NT Restoration
Foundation did miss the point!
It
would be redundant for Jesus to add not
baptized after
not believing, for
those not believing would certainly not
want to be baptized!
The statement
“and is not baptized”
in the second clause is not necessary
and is self explanatory!
b. Acts 22:16:
“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized,
and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
In this text Paul is explaining the circumstances of his conversion
(see Acts 9 for his conversion). That he believes in Jesus is
obvious from the context of his conversion. Ananias now called
on Paul to arise and be baptized, but for what purpose?
Mantey and evangelicals would have his baptism
because of his forgiveness and cleansing, and see baptism
as an act of obedience following salvation.
However, that is not what the text clearly states!
In keeping with Mark 16:15, 16, and Acts 2:38,
baptism here clearly preceded cleansing and the forgiveness of sin.
Beasley-Murray makes a strong point that in both Acts 2:38 and Acts
22:16 baptism is associated with the name of Jesus, either
“in the name of Jesus Christ” or
"calling on his name.” This would imply that
the power of salvation lies primarily in the person of Jesus,
and not in the believing, repenting, and baptizing!
Beasley-Murray argues that there is more in the expression “in the
name of Jesus” than merely the authority of Jesus.
It is in Jesus' death and resurrection that salvation is focused,
and “in the name of Jesus Christ”
or “in the person of Jesus Christ”
connects us dynamically with his death
and resurrection.
Apparently, this is what Paul had in mind when he spoke of baptism
in Rom 6:1-5. We will examine Rom 6:1-5 below.
c.
Col 2:12:
In this text Paul is making the point that the Colossian Christians
were not in a covenant relationship with God through physical
circumcision, as was the case with Israel, but their covenant
relationship with God was through a “circumcision not made with
hands”. He continues to explain that
they had entered this new covenant relationship with God by dying
and being raised with Jesus (see Rom 6:1-5). Their
covenant relationship was based in what God worked and brought about
through Jesus, and their connection with this
covenant took place
through their baptism which expressed their faith in the
working of God.
“And you were buried with him in baptism,
in which you were also raised with him
through faith in the working of God, who raised him from
the dead.” Christians take on a new life by dying to their old
life and being born again, anew, with Christ. Paul clearly
teaches in Rom 6 and here in this text that this takes place at
baptism. It is in baptism that they were united with Christ in
a death like his.
This text emphasizes that in baptism the
believer is trusting (faith) in the working of God, not in their own
working. In baptism we surrender in faith to the
working of God.
d. Rom 6:1-5:
“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may
abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still
live in it? 3 Do you not know
that all of us who have been baptized
into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death? 4
We were buried therefore with him
by baptism into
death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the
glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5For
if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall
certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. ”
In baptism
we die to ourselves and our old manner of
life.
We are symbolically buried and raised with Christ to begin a
new walk in life! We are united with Christ and his death in
baptism!
If we are saved before baptism, then according
to this verse we are saved before dying to our old sinful life and
being united with Christ in a new life like his! By
dying in baptism we are then dying to a salvation and experiencing a
new and different birth from that of salvation. This argument
patently misses the point Paul is making!
The new birth Paul is describing is not the result of our working,
but comes about through our faith in the working of God!
e.
1 Pet 3:21:
Peter clearly connects salvation to water and
baptism in this verse!
Peter is making an analogy to Noah’s experience in the flood, and
observes that eight souls were saved on that occasion by water.
He then connects his analogy to Christian
baptism.
We should note that the salvation of Noah and his family from the
flood came about as a result of God’s grace and Noah’s faith in God,
not in his own ability. Notice what the writer of Hebrews says
regarding Noah, “By faith Noah, being warned by God
concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an
ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world
and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith.”
Notice Peter’s statement regarding Noah and Christian salvation,
“God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of
the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons,
were saved through water.
21 Baptism,
which corresponds to this,
now saves you, not as a removal
of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for (eis) a
clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Peter clearly states that Christians are saved by baptism.
However, baptism becomes the prayer, request, or appeal to God
for (eis) a clear conscience.
It would take a stretch of imagination to translate this in a way
that would imply that baptism is an appeal to God
because of
a clear conscience! That is what some
evangelical theology would imply, but it is clearly not what Peter
implied or stated very clearly! In this case, then, what is
baptism an appeal to God for?
7. The
Task of The Translator.
This section discusses the task of the translator in making a
translation of the Greek text.
C. H. Dodd, noted New Testament scholar, once observed that the
translator must realize that he undertakes an impossible art!
Dodd would agree that his observation was an overstatement, but
would observe that it indicates the difficulty faced by translators
who translate from an ancient text into a modern language.
The following are principles that the
translator must take seriously when translating from one language
and era to a modern era.
The translation must:
a.
Be true to the idiom,
language, and message of the original text
b. Speak accurately in the
idiom of the readers
c.
Be clear and
intelligible
d. Strive toward a measure of
consistency in its choice of words
e.
Manifest a literary
style that is suitable to the tenor of the message
f.
Be accurate in its
reproduction of the original message
g.
Be true to the Gospel
of Jesus Christ, rather than to a particular
theological or denominational persuasio
h.
Be made by a committee
that is reasonably widespread in theological
conviction, and qualified in the field of textual criticism and
translation.
The reader is encouraged
to refer to the other studies hosted under the heading Acts 2:38,
especially the discussion on the excellent article by Robert Stein.
As a further study the reader is encouraged to
examine the study on Baptism posted on the Center's home page.
|
