Featured It is impossible to convince a Mormon that he is wrong!

Below is another commentary on the Greek word "eis":



The Preposition “Eis” in Acts 2:38

By Wayne Jackson

For several generations God’s people have conducted debates with our denominational neighbors as to the meaning of the word “for” (Greek, eis) in Acts 2:38. Peter commanded on that occasion:


“Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for [unto ASV] the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

The English term “for” is very flexible; it may indicate a goal that is yet not reached, e.g., “Go to the pharmacy for [to obtain] medicine.” Or it may be used to refer to a circumstance that has transpired already, e.g., “He went to prison for [on account of] burglary.”

Because of this flexibility with reference to “for,” some have assumed that the Greek word eis has the same flexibility, and therefore baptism is not to obtain the forgiveness of one’s sins; rather, it is engaged because of pardon received already (presumably at the point of faith). There are several things to be said in response to this ploy.

English Is Not Greek

Just because the English “for” has some elasticity, and thus may point to a precedent circumstance, such does not mean that the Greek preposition eis has similar properties.

The Greek term eis is found about 1,750 times in the New Testament. While it has a variety of meaning shades, it always is prospective (forward looking), and is never retrospective (backward looking) in its direction.

It is “an indicator of direction toward a goal, not as an indicator of location without direction” (Balz, 398). The preposition is used with the accusative case, meaning it points to the object of verbal action. Thus eis generally is translated by such terms as in, into, unto, to, toward, etc. It is a goal-oriented term.

Theology and Grammar Matters

Theologically speaking, the construction of the compound verbs — “repent and be baptized” — connected with the prepositional phrase — “for the forgiveness of sins” — demonstrates that the sense of eis cannot possibly be “because of,” thus conveying the sense, “on account of the forgiveness of your sins." And why is that?

Because it would equally affirm that one is required to “repent” because of the forgiveness of his sins. Who in the world subscribes to the notion that one repents of sin because his transgressions are forgiven already? That makes no sense at all.

Comparative Passages Highlight the Truth

In Matthew 26:28 there is an identical construction of eis, conjoined with the terms “forgiveness of sins,” just as in Acts 2:38.

In the Matthew text, as he institutes the communion supper, Jesus said: “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.”

Even the renowned Baptist scholar, A. T. Robertson, who attempted to twist Acts 2:38 into conformity with his personal theological agenda, was forced to surrender his position when discussing Matthew 26:28. Of the controversial phrase he stated:


“The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins” (210; emphasis added).

In his massive Historical Grammar, Robertson suggested that sometimes “grammar” has to give way to “theology” (389). Is that any way to treat the verbally inspired word of God? Yet that is how Robertson sought to dispose of Acts 2:38. For shame!

Conclusion

It is a sad day in the history of the church of Jesus Christ when men — formerly sound, gospel preachers — begin to deny, both by pen and via pulpit, that baptism is required “for the remission of sins.”


Sources/FootnotesBalz, Horst and Gerhard Schneider. 1978. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids: MI.
Robertson, A. T. 1919. Historical Grammar. Hodder & Stoughton: London, England.
Robertson, A. T. 1930. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol. 1. Broadman: Nashville

 

Below is another discussion of the Greek word "eis":



Question:

If the Greek word "eis" ("for" in English) is always forward looking, then what about Matthew 3:11? Here it says that John baptized for repentance, but the repentance would have had to have come before the baptism. After all, Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 states John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. Therefore, "eis" can be "because of" in Acts 2:38.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Answer:

The question shown above is actually a brief summary of a very convoluted argument sent to me. Rather than quoting reputable sources which state that eis is a preposition that looks forward to a goal and play the game of "my scholar is bigger than your scholar," I will try to address the question in a plain fashion.

In Matthew 26:28 Jesus stated, "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." This particular verse is of interest because the phrase "for the remission of sins" is precisely the same Greek phrase used in Acts 2:38. Did Jesus shed his blood because men's sins had already been forgiven or was it shed with the view that men's sins can be forgiven? I hope that it is clear that Jesus' blood brought the forgiveness of sins; that forgiveness did not exist prior to Jesus' death. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed" (Romans 3:23-25). Or in Ephesians 1:7, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." Therefore, Matthew 26:28 proves the possibility that "for (eis)" can be used in the forward looking sense.

The question then is did Peter use it in a forward looking sense or a backward sense as the questioner argues? Let us just for a moment assume that the questioner is correct (though the weight of scholarship is against him) and that eis might be translated "because of" in some cases and in Acts 2:38 in paticular.

In Acts 2 Peter had just finished laying out strong evidence that the Jews had murdered the Messiah. In response to this message we read, "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" " (Acts 2:37). Peter's message had got through to these people. What could they possibily do about this great sin that was theirs to bear? The questioner argues that Peter's response was "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins." The questioner has Peter saying that they needed to repent and be baptized because they had already been forgiven of their sins. Now isn't that strange. The people asked what they needed to do to be saved and we are told that Peter didn't answer their question. Instead, we are told, that Peter told them they were already saved. Yet as we continue to read we find this, "And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation"" (Acts 2:40). Wait a minute! Didn't the questioner have Peter telling the people they were already saved? Why does Peter continue to exhort the crowd to be saved afterwards? Then notice how the crowd responded to Peter's exhortation, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them" (Acts 2:41).

All Greek scholars admit that the Greek word eis is a preposition that looks forward to an object. A few, notably those persuaded that baptism is not essential for salvation, argue that in a few cases eis operates like our English word "for" which can look both forward and backward, depending on the context. However, it is obvious from the context of Acts 2:38 that Peter was not stating that his audience had already received salvation, else he would have had no need to continue to exhort them to be saved from their sins. Hence, Peter's use of eis in Acts 2:38 is the typical forward looking usage. A person who repents and is baptized can look forward to forgiveness of their sins. When the people accepted Peter's teaching, they were baptized and were added to the rolls of God's children. The implication is that they were forgiven of their sins; matching Peter's later statement, "baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21).

Before ending this reply, let us now address whether eis in Matthew 3:11 must be referring to a past event. From a commentary written by J. W. McGarvey, Mr. McGarvey addresses this concern:


"The phrase under consideration has another meaning, though somewhat obscure as regards it connection with the facts, is very naturally expressed by the words themselves. The preposition is often expressive of purpose, and the phrase may be properly rendered 'in order to repentance.' The baptism was not in order to the repentance of the party baptized. ... But a baptism which required repentance as a prerequisite would have a tendency to cause those yet unbaptized to repent, in order that they might receive the baptism and enjoy its blessings. Prizes in schools are given in order to good behavior and good recitations, although the good recitations and good behavior must precede the reception of the prizes. Promotions in the army are in order to the encouragement of obedience and valor, although these qualitites of the good soldier must appear before the promoition can take place. In the same way was John's baptism in order to repentance. The inestimable blessing of remission of sins being attached to baptism (see Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3), the desire to obtain this blessing, would prompt those yet unbaptized to repent, so that they might be baptized. The words declare simply that the general purpose of John's baptism was to bring the people to repentance."

Hence, there is a way to read Matthew 3:11 that retains the common forward looking meaning of eis.

 

Another discussion of the Greek word "eis":


What is the meaning of the Greek word “eis” in Acts 2:38. Could it mean because of?


Question:



Someone shared this with me and I was curious of your thoughts on it.



" Daniel B. Wallace disagrees with you. The preposition εἰς can mean many different things and be used numerous ways, including -

A spatial use, a temporal use, a use of purpose, a use of result, a use of reference, a use of advantage or disadvantage, or it can be used in place of the preposition "en". I’d be happy to elaborate on how these uses can be translated, but let me just say that "in order to," or "with a view to" are far from the only possible translations of this preposition.




Now, there are a couple of ways of handling the use of εἰς in this passage. It is possible, with the shift from the 2nd personal plural form with "repent", to the 3rd person singular for "be baptized", then back to the 2nd person plural form with "for the forgiveness of sins" would indicate that that "repent" is what the use of εἰς refers to, showing that only repenting is being commanded here for the forgiveness of sin. This is a sound grammatical understanding, but it is a bit clunky and awkward, so there must be something more to it.

Wallace suggests that the inclusion of baptism in the midst of this command suggests that the Jewish audience would have understood the symbolism of baptism to be a public declaration on their part, and an acknowledgment on the apostle’s part, of their new found faith. They would have already been Spirit-baptized at the point of their repentance and faith (as Acts 1:5 makes clear), and the water baptism would have been the natural expression of that new faith (as Acts 10 points out – the new believers’ faith is demonstrated through the Holy Spirit, and the natural first good work produced by that faith is a submission to the command of baptism)."




Answer:




My response is that this is hogwash. I have heard these arguments before. This is clearly the work of someone desparate to avoid the dead obvious implications of the passage. Do not be bamboozled by the scholarly sounding mumbo jumbo. If you look carefully, it is very obvious that the author is reading a presupposition into the text. Note he says "they would have already been Spirit-baptized?" When? Where does he see this in the passage? It is not in the passage. It is also not in the Bible. At least he admits that his interpretation is "clunky." His only response is to resort to his pre-conceived assumption, which is circular reasoning if I have ever seen it. My response is that this kind of thing should make you all the more confident that the conclusion I think you already take from the passage is all the more confirmed by the gymnastics required by a person who would rather die than face the obvious. The Greek word eis means for, in order to or into. Acts 2:38 commands that we be baptized for (eis) the forgiveness of sins. I was in Greece where the entrances to the highways are called eisodus. Fortuntatly for the safety of people in that country, the residents know an entrance from an exit (exodus).



John Oakes

 

And another discussion



Meaning of "eis" in Acts 2:38

Some, in wishing to deny the importance and purpose of baptism, claim that the original Greek word eis in Acts 2:38 means "be baptized because you already have remission of sins." But such a translation and interpretation cannot be supported with a responsible study of Scripture and the Greek language.

In Acts 2:38 (KJV), Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR (Greek eis) the remission of sins." According to one source, eis is translated in this way in the King James Version:

Into – 571 times

To -- 282 times

Unto -- 208 times

In -- 131 times

For -- 91 times

On -- 57 times

Toward -- 32 times

That -- 30 times

Against -- 25 times

Upon -- 25 times

At -- 20 times

Among -- 16 times

Concerning -- 5 times

“because of” – 0 times

According to Thayer's lexigon, eis means "entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among." The majority of the words listed above are consistent with that meaning. Many wish to believe/teach that Peter said repent and be baptized "because of" the remission of sins. There is, however, not a single instance of the Greek word eis in the KJV ever translated as "because of." Nor is there apparently any version of the Bible that translates Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized . . . because of the remission of sins." <There are several versions though, that translate the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” as “so that your sins will be forgiven”>

To better understand the meaning, consider the entire phrase "for the remission of sins." In the original Greek it reads: eis aphesin ton hamartion humon. That phrase is also found in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 where John preached "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Did John preach and baptize because they already had forgiveness, or was it leading up to that time of forgiveness through Christ?

The real test, though, is found in Matthew 26:28. There Jesus said His blood "is shed for many for the remission of sins." What did He mean by that? Would He shed His blood because people already had forgiveness or in order that they might obtain it?

If Jesus used the word/phrase to mean "in order to receive remission of sins," then is it not reasonable to conclude that Peter, by inspiration of the Spirit sent by Jesus, would mean the exact same thing when he used the exact same phrase? Surely Peter's command to be baptized in Acts 2:38 means what it clearly says: baptism is for/in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins.

The above article was contributed from the Manassas church of Christ website.

Furthermore, if their sins were already forgiven, why in the world would Peter tell them to repent? Repentance is for those who still have their sins counted against them. If their sins were already forgiven, (and they were therefore already saved) why would Peter (in verse 40) tell them to “save yourselves…”?

The argument that we are saved before baptism is a lie! It originates from the father of lies who was a murderer from the beginning and in whom is no truth.

9 questions for those that still want to insist salvation occurs before baptism

Additional note:

When Peter replied to the crowd in Acts 2, he specified to be baptized “for the forgiveness of your sins”, not just “be baptized”. Both Mark and Luke record that when John the Baptist came preaching baptism, it was not just baptism he preached, but a baptism for the forgiveness of sins:



Mark1:4
And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism for the forgiveness of sins.



Luke3:3

He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism for the forgiveness of sins.



The following is an selection from J.W. McGarvey’s commentary on Acts 2:37-38

37. It has already been observed, that up to the moment in which Peter arose to address the audience, although the immersion in the Holy Spirit had occurred, and its effects had been fully witnessed by the people, no change had taken place in their minds in reference to Jesus Christ, neither did they experience any emotion, except confusion and amazement at a phenomenon which they could not comprehend. This fact proves, conclusively, that there was no power in the [37] miraculous manifestation of the Spirit, which they witnesses, in itself alone, to produce in them the desired change. All the power which belonged to this event must have come short of the desired effect, but for a medium distinct from itself, through which it reached the minds and hearts of the people. The medium was the words of Peter. He spoke; and when he had announced the conclusion of his argument, Luke says: (37) "Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the other apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?" In this exclamation there is a manifest confession that they believe what Peter has preached to them; and Luke's declaration that they were pierced to the heart shows that they felt intensely the power of the facts which they now believed. Since Peter began to speak, therefore, a change has taken place both in their convictions and their feelings. They are convinced that Jesus is the Christ, and they are pierced to the heart with anguish at the thought of having murdered him. In the mean time, not a word is said of any influence at work upon them, except that of the words spoken by Peter; hence we conclude that the change in their minds and hearts has been effected through those words. This conclusion was also drawn by Luke himself; for in saying, "when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and cried out," he evidently attributes their emotion and their outcry to what they heard, as the cause of both.

If Luke had regarded the change effected as one which could be produced only by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, he could not have expressed himself in these words, for his language not only entirely ignores such an influence, but attributes the effect to a different instrumentality. We understand him, therefore, to teach that the whole change thus far effected in these men was produced through the word of truth which they heard from Peter.

Let it be observed, however, that what they had heard concerning Christ, they had heard not as the words of the mere man Peter; for, previous to introducing the name of Jesus, he had clearly demonstrated the inspiration of himself and the other apostles. This being established beyond the possibility of rational doubt, from the moment that he began to speak of Jesus they were listening to him as an inspired man. But the Jews had long since learned to ascribe to the words of inspired men all the authority of the Spirit who spoke through them; hence this audience realized that all the power to convince and to move, that the authority of God himself could impart to words, belonged to the words of Peter. If they could believe God, they must believe the oracles of God which find utterance through Peter's lips. They do believe, and they believe because the words they hear are recognized as the words of God. Faith, then, comes by hearing the word of God; and he who hears the admitted word of God, must believe, or deny that God speaks the truth. This is true, whether the word is heard from the lips of the inspired men who originally gave it utterance, or is received through other authentic channels. The power by which the word of God produces faith is all derived from the fact that it is the word of God.

No words, whether of men or of God, can effect moral changes in the feelings of the hearer, unless they are believed; nor can they when [38] believed, unless they announce truths or facts calculated to produce such change. In the present instance, the facts announced placed the hearers in the awful attitude of the murderers of the Son of God, who was now not only alive again, but seated on the throne of God, with all power in his hands, both on earth and in heaven. The belief of these facts necessarily filled them with the most intense realization of guilt, and the most fearful anticipation of punishment. The former of these emotions is expressed by the words of Luke, "They were pierced to the heart;" the latter, in their own words, "Brethren, what shall we do?" They had just heard Peter, in the language of Joel, speak of a possible salvation; and the question, What shall we do? unquestionably means, What shall we do to be saved?

38. This is the first time, under the reign of Jesus Christ, that this most important of all questions was ever propounded; and the first time, of course, that it was every answered. Whatever may have been the true answer under any previous dispensation, or on any previous day in the world's history, the answer given by Peter on this day of Pentecost, in which the reign of Christ on earth began, is the true and infallible answer for all the subjects of his authority in all subsequent time. It deserves our most profound attention; for it announces the conditions of pardon for all men who may be found in the same state of mind with these inquiries. It is expressed as follows: (38) "Then Peter said to them, Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

That the offer of pardon, made to the world through Jesus Christ, is conditional, is denied only by the fatalist. We will not argue this point, expect as it is involved in the inquiry as to what the conditions of pardon are. When we ascertain the prescribed conditions of pardon, both questions will be settled in settling one.

 

(continued from above)

Pardon is the chief want of the human soul, in its most favorable earthly circumstances. The rebel against God's government, though he lay down his arms and becomes a loyal subject, can have no hope of happiness without pardon for the past; while the pardoned penitent, humbly struggling in the service of God, knows himself still guilty of shortcomings, by which he must fail of the final reward, unless pardoned again and again. The question as to what are the conditions of pardon, therefore, necessarily divides itself into two; one having reference to the hitherto-unpardoned sinner, the other to the saint who may have fallen into sin. It is the former class who propounded the question to Peter, and it is to them alone that the answer under consideration was given. We will confine ourselves, in our present remarks, to this branch of the subject, and discuss it only in the light of the passage before us.

If we regard the question of the multitude, What shall we do? as simply a question of duty under their peculiar circumstances, without special reference to final results, we learn from the answer that there were two things for them to do--Repent, and be immersed. If Peter had stopped with these two words, his answer would have been satisfactory, in this view of the subject, and it would have been the [39] conclusion of the world, that the duty of a sinner, "pierced to the heart" by a sense of guilt, is to repent and be immersed.

But if we regard their question as having definite reference to the salvation of which Peter had already spoken, (verse 21,) and their meaning, What shall we do to be saved? then the answer is equally definite: it teaches that what a sinner thus affected is to do to be saved, is to repent and be immersed.

From these two observations, the reader perceives, that so far as the conditions of salvation from past sins are concerned, the duty of the sinner is most definitely taught by the first two words of the answer, taken in connection with their question, without entering upon the controversy concerning the remainder of the answer. If it had been Peter's design merely to give an answer in concise terms, without explanation, no doubt he would have confined it to these two words, for they contain the only commands which he gives.

But he saw fit to accompany the two commands with suitable explanations. He qualifies the command to be immersed by the clause, "in the name of Jesus Christ," to show that it is under his authority that they were to be immersed, and not merely under that of the Father, whose authority alone was recognized in John's immersion. That we are right in referring to this limiting clause, "in the name of Jesus Christ," to the command to be immersed, and not to the command repent, is evident from the fact that it would be incongruous to say, "Repent in the name of Jesus Christ."

Peter further explains the two commands, by stating their specific design; by which term we mean the specific blessing which was to be expected as the consequence of obedience. It is "for the remission of sins." To convince an unbiased mind that this clause depends upon both the preceding commands, and express their design, it would only be necessary to repeat the words, "Repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." But, inasmuch as it has suited the purpose of some controversialists to dispute this proposition, we here give the opinions of two recent representative commentators, who can not be suspected of undue bias in its favor.

Dr. Alexander (Presbyterian) says, "The whole phrase, to (or toward) remission of sins, describes this as the end to which the multitude had reference, and which, therefore, must be contemplated in the answer." Again: "The beneficial end to which all this led was the remission of sins."

Dr. Hackett (Baptist) expresses himself still more satisfactorily: "eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins, (Matt. 26:28 Luke iii: 3,) we connect, naturally, with the both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other."

The connection contended for can not be made more apparent by argument; it needs only that attention be called to it, in order to be perceived by every unbiased mind. It is possible that some doubt might arise in reference to the connection of the clause with the term [40] repent, but one would imagine that its connection with the command be immersed could not be doubted, but for the fact that it has been disputed. Indeed, some controversialists have felt so great necessity for denying the last-named connection, as to assume that the clause, "for the remission of sins" depends largely upon the term repent, and that the connection of thought is this: "Repent for the remission of sins, and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ." It is a sufficient refutation of this assumption to remark, that, if Peter had intended to say this, he would most certainly have done so; but he has said something entirely different; and this shows that he meant something entirely different. If men are permitted, after this style, to entirely reconstruct the sentences of inspired apostles, then there is no statement in the Word of God which may not be perverted. We dismiss this baseless assumption with the remark, that it has not been dignified by the indorsement of any writer of respectable attainments, known to the author, and it would not be noticed here, but for the frequency of its appearance in the pulpit, in the columns of denominational newspapers, and on the pages of partisan tracts.

The dependence of the clause, "for the remission of sins," upon both the verbs repent and be immersed, being established, it would seem undeniable that remission of sins is the blessing in order to the enjoyment of which they were commanded to repent and be immersed. This is universally admitted so far as the term repent is concerned, but by many denied in reference to the command be immersed; hence the proposition that immersion is for the remission of sins is rejected by the Protestant sects in general. Assuming that remission of sins precedes immersion, and that, so far as adults are concerned, the only proper subjects for this ordinance are those whose sins are already pardoned, it is urged that for in this clause means "on account of" or "because of." Hence, Peter is understood to command, "Repent and be immersed on account of remission of sins already enjoyed." But this interpretation is subject to two insuperable objections. 1st. To command men to repent and be immersed because their sins were already remitted, is to require them not only to be immersed on this account, but to repent because they were already pardoned. There is no possibility of extricating the interpretation from this absurdity. 2d. It contradicts an obvious fact of the case. It makes Peter command the inquirers to be immersed because their sins were already remitted, whereas it is an indisputable fact that their sins were not yet remitted. On the contrary, they were still pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and by the question they propounded were seeking how they might obtain the very pardon which this interpretation assumes that they already enjoyed. Certainly no sane man would assume a position involving such absurdity, and so contradictory to an obvious fact, were he not driven to it by the inexorable demands of a theory which could not be otherwise sustained.

We observe, further, in reference to this interpretation, that even if we admit the propriety of supplanting the preposition for by the phrase on account of, the substitute will not answer the purpose for [41] which it is employed. The meaning of this phrase varies, according as its object is past or future. "On account of" some past event may mean because it has taken place; but on account of an event yet in the future, would, in the same connection, mean in order that it might take place. The same is true of the equivalent phrase, "because of." If, then, the parties addressed by Peter were already pardoned, "on account of the remission of sins" would mean, because their sins had been remitted. But as this is an indisputable fact that the parties addressed were yet unpardoned, what they are commanded to do on account of remission of sins must mean, in order that their sins may be remitted. Such a rendering, therefore, would not even render the obvious meaning of the passage less perspicuous than it already is.

It will be found that any other substitute for the preposition for, designed to force upon the passage a meaning different from that which it obviously bears, will as signally fail to suit the purpose of its author. If, with Dr. Alexander, we render, Repent and be immersed "to (or toward) remission of sins," we still have remission both beyond repentance and immersion, and depending upon them as preparatory conditions. Indeed, this rendering would leave it uncertain whether repentance and immersion would bring them to remission of sins, or only toward it, leaving an indefinite space yet to pass before obtaining it.

If, with others still--for every effort that ingenuity could suggest has been made to find another meaning for this passage--we render it, Repent and be immersed unto or into remission of sins, the attempt is fruitless; for remission of sins is still the blessing unto which or into which repentance and immersion are to lead the inquirers.

 

(continued)


Sometimes the advocates of these various renderings, when disheartened by the failure of their attempts at argument and criticism, resort to raillery, and assert that the whole doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins depends upon the one little word for in the command, "be immersed for the remission of sins." If this were true, it would be no humiliation; for a doctrine based upon a word of God, however small, has an eternal and immutable foundation. But it is not true. On the contrary, you may draw a pencil-mark over the whole clause, "for the remission of sins," erasing it, with all the remainder of Peter's answer, and still the meaning will remain unchanged. The connection would then read thus: "Brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be immersed every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus." Remembering now that these parties were pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and that their question means, What shall we do to be saved from our sins? The answer must be understood as the answer to that question. But the answer is, Repent and be immersed; therefore, to repent and to be immersed are the two things which they must do in order to be saved from their sins.

The reader now perceives, that, in this first announcement to sinners of the terms of pardon, so guardedly has Peter expressed himself, and so skillfully has Luke interwoven with his words the historic facts, that whatever rendering men have forced upon the leading [42] term, the meaning of the whole remains unchanged; and even when you strike this term and its dependent words out of the text, that same meaning still stares you in the face. The fact is suggestive of more than human wisdom. It reminds us that Peter spoke, and Luke wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That infinite wisdom which was dictating a record for all time to come is displayed here, providing for future controversies which no human being could anticipate. Like the sun in the heavens, which may be temporarily obscured by clouds, but will still break forth again, and shine upon all but those who hide from his beams, the light of truth which God has suspended in this passage may be dimmed for a moment by the mists of partisan criticism, but to those who are willing to see it, it will still send out its beams, and guide the trembling sinner unerringly to pardon and peace.

If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the words eis aphesin hamartion, for the remission of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins," eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed. The propitiation through his blood was in order to the offer of pardon, while repentance and immersion are enjoined by Peter upon his hearers, in order to the attainment of pardon.

 

My conclusion on the Greek word "eis":

The commentaries that I have just studied and presented above completely debunk the idea that the Greek word "eis" can be translated "because of" in Matt. 3:11 or in Acts 2:38.

Unless someone presents further comments on Matthew chapter 3 in the next 24 hours, I will move on to the next chapters of Matthew to review scripture discussing salvation by faith and the doctrine of baptism.

 

What translation of the Bible do you use?

The ESV has Baptists on the committee for translation. Are they in on this conspiracy not to properly translate the Greek word "eis"? The ESV translates the word "for".

And what about the Greeks themselves? They translate "eis" in their Greek Orthodox English translation "for". Are they part of the paedobaptist conspiracy also? Wouldn't some trouble-making Greek somewhere stand up and say, "Hey, that isn't what "eis" means there!"

 

Dear brother,

Your use of the Greek word "eis" goes against the rules of Greek grammar. See below:

Because of this flexibility with reference to “for,” some have assumed that the Greek word eis has the same flexibility, and therefore baptism is not to obtain the forgiveness of one’s sins; rather, it is engaged because of pardon received already (presumably at the point of faith). There are several things to be said in response to this ploy.

English Is Not Greek

Just because the English “for” has some elasticity, and thus may point to a precedent circumstance, such does not mean that the Greek preposition eis has similar properties.

The Greek term eis is found about 1,750 times in the New Testament. While it has a variety of meaning shades, it always is prospective (forward looking), and is never retrospective (backward looking) in its direction.

It is “an indicator of direction toward a goal, not as an indicator of location without direction” (Balz, 398). The preposition is used with the accusative case, meaning it points to the object of verbal action. Thus eis generally is translated by such terms as in, into, unto, to, toward, etc. It is a goal-oriented term.

Theology and Grammar Matters

Theologically speaking, the construction of the compound verbs — “repent and be baptized” — connected with the prepositional phrase — “for the forgiveness of sins” — demonstrates that the sense of eis cannot possibly be “because of,” thus conveying the sense, “on account of the forgiveness of your sins." And why is that?

Because it would equally affirm that one is required to “repent” because of the forgiveness of his sins. Who in the world subscribes to the notion that one repents of sin because his transgressions are forgiven already? That makes no sense at all.

Comparative Passages Highlight the Truth

In Matthew 26:28 there is an identical construction of eis, conjoined with the terms “forgiveness of sins,” just as in Acts 2:38.

In the Matthew text, as he institutes the communion supper, Jesus said: “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.”

Even the renowned Baptist scholar, A. T. Robertson, who attempted to twist Acts 2:38 into conformity with his personal theological agenda, was forced to surrender his position when discussing Matthew 26:28. Of the controversial phrase he stated:


“The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins” (210; emphasis added).

In his massive Historical Grammar, Robertson suggested that sometimes “grammar” has to give way to “theology” (389). Is that any way to treat the verbally inspired word of God? Yet that is how Robertson sought to dispose of Acts 2:38. For shame!

 

If your use of the word "eis" is correct then Acts 2:38 should read thus:

Repent and be baptized...because of the remission of sins."

This would mean that forgiveness of sins happens before repentance. I don't think any Christian denomination believes that. "Repent' and "be baptized" cannot be separated so that "because of remision of sins" applies only to baptism.

Either repentance and baptism happen AFTER the forgiveness of sins, or repentance and baptism are to occur FOR the forgiveness of sins. You can't have it both ways unless you do some real fancy contorting of the English language.

 

There is no disagreement between us that the persons coming to John's baptism had to be repentant and show signs of repentance, the question is, when did God grant forgiveness? Did he grant forgiveness when they were still in Jerusalem and made the decision to go down to the Jordan to be baptized? Were they forgiven when they arrived at the Jordan and prayed a prayer to God to forgive them of their sins, or were they forgiven of their sins when, with a repentant heart and outward signs of repentance, they followed God's command, entered the water, and allowed John to put them under the water?

And again I ask, why did John and Jesus select a public sign of forgiveness/profession of faith, that every Jew in Palestine recognized as a b water ritual for spiritual cleansing as taught by the Phariesees??