ACTS 2:38 AND THE GREEK PREPOSITI0N
EIS, "FOR"
“FOR
(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 the following study on Baptism by 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. He
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!
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 list 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 its 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.
5. 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 seen
in 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.”
6. 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 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
eis 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:
i. Mantey
points out that in the context of the first century
eis 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!
ii.
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.
iii.
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.)
iv.
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.)
We return now to
Mantey’s argument:
“The sentence
metanohsen eis 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
rendered 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 used with a
person
or ting 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 eis 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 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 the 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 “Resultant” or “Remote” meanings, without resorting to a
“controversial” translation, because of.
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.
7.
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 underlining the parallel
words in the Greek
text.)
Matt 26:28 - touto gar
estin to aima mou th" diaqhkh" to peri pollwn ekcunnomenon
ei" afesin amartiwn.
Acts 2:38 -
baptisqhtw
ekasto" umwn epi tw onmati
Ihsou
Cristou ei" afesin
twn amartiw`n.
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 eis Criston Ihsoun, eis ton Qanaton
autou ebaptisqhmen
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 Pavnte"
gar uioi qeou este dia ths pistew" en Cristw Ihsou 27osoi
gar eis Criston ebaptisqhte, Criston enedusasqe
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…”
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.”
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
hardia
gar
pisteuetai
eis
dikaiosunhn
stomati
de omologeitai
eis
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.
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 Iwannhs
»o¼ baptizwn
en th erhmw/ kai
khrusswn
baptisma metanoias"
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 eis
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, 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.”
8. 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 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 his 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.
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 6:1-4). Their covenant
relationship was based in that which 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?
9. 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 persuasion
h.
Be made by a
committee that is reasonably widespread in theological
conviction, and qualified in the field of
textual criticism and translation.
|
