ACTS 2:38 AND THE
GREEK PREPOSITI0N EIS
“FOR 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.
|