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.
|