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 :
G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament,
Eerdmans, 1962. Beasley-Murray is a 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.
The article by a distinguished Baptist scholar,
Robert H. Stein, is in keeping with Beasley-Murray's work.
This article, "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. 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.
See also the brief work by Jack 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.
|
