Latent Talent

The other day I came across the phrase “latent talent” and it struck me that those two words – “latent” and “talent” – share the same letters. Not only do they share the same letters, but they are further connected in that far too much talent remains latent. While it’s always a shame when useful and enjoyable talents remain untapped, the problem of latent talents is especially acute within the Church. God has given each of us abilities, and He desires that we use them for the building up of His kingdom. In Romans 12:4–6, Paul writes, “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them.”

God has provided the personnel and skills necessary for the flourishing of His Church. The problem is that so often, the talents that God has provided the Church through its members remain latent. Potential song leaders remain silent, potential leaders remain seated, potential encouragers / teachers / maintenance technicians / etc. for whatever reason fail to identify and take advantage of the talents that God has given them for the benefit of others. We do not all have the same abilities, and that is exactly why we need everyone to work together for the growth of the Church.

If the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30) has entered your mind, know that it has been in mine as well. Now, admittedly, the “talents” of the parable are units of weight (1 talent = about 80 pounds). Nevertheless, the number of “talents” given to the individuals represents resources: time, money, and also talents. The five and the two talent men were praised for their wise use of their talents. They took the resources given them by God and put them to work for the Lord’s benefit. But what of the one talent man? Was he reprimanded because he did not have as many resources as the other two. Certainly not! He was reprimanded because he buried his talent instead of using it to the benefit of the Lord. His talent remained latent!

God does not ask us to do what He has not equipped us to do, but He absolutely expects us to use whatever talents He has blessed us with to His glory and the building up of His kingdom. He has equipped His church with people possessing a variety of skills which together make a well-functioning whole. It is not just “people” that He has equipped, it is YOU and ME that He has equipped. Our responsibility is to identify the skills He has given us and to make use of them for the building up of the Church. God forbid that we allow the talents He has given us to remain latent. “But how,” some may ask, “do I identify my talents?” Here are a few suggestions:

  1. Reflect on your own resources and interests
  2. Listen to what others say you are good at or how you have helped them
  3. Identify the needs of the Church: remember, God has provided the people and skills that the Church needs. If you can identify what the Church needs, it may be that YOU are the person with the skill to take care of it.
  4. Finally, pray that God would show you how you might benefit the Church. Having prayed, pay attention to what others are saying and to what the Church needs. You never know how God will answer a prayer.

AD 70: The Year the Temple Fell

One of the most significant dates in world history is 70 AD. In that year the Roman army destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and much of the city. The events surrounding the siege and destruction of Jerusalem are recorded most fully by Josephus in his book The Jewish War. While the history of the Jewish rebellion and its defeat is fascinating in and of itself, the destruction of the temple has significance that still impacts us today.

First, the destruction of the temple is the final nail in the coffin of Judaism. While the Mosaic Law and the Jewish religion as such technically came to a close at the death of Jesus, there was somewhat of a transition period in which Christians still interacted with the temple. That is why, for example, we read of Paul going to the temple as part of a vow (Acts 21). With the destruction of the temple, this transition period is brought to a permanent close. There is no more temple, no more animal sacrifice. The shadows are done away with because the true form has come. As if to make this even more clear, God in His providence allowed the Muslims to build a Mosque (The Dome of the Rock) on the temple mount, so far preventing any new temple to be built.

Second, the destruction of the temple is an example of fulfilled prophecy. Jesus, in his Olivet Discourse (Matt 24–25, Mark 13, Luke 21) speaks clearly about the pending destruction of Jerusalem. He mentions specifically that it would happen within one generation (i.e., about 40 years) and that “there will not be left here one stone upon another” (Matt 24:2). Both of these things happened: the temple was destroyed in 70 AD and the temple was completely demolished; the elevated plateau on which the temple stood was wiped clean. Now, some people wonder about the large rocks at the temple mount they see in pictures, commonly called the Wailing Wall. Those rocks are not part of the temple complex itself, but are part of a retaining wall at the bottom of the plateau on which the temple complex sat. Not only did Jesus foretell the destruction of the temple, but He warned His disciples to flee Jerusalem as soon as the signs pointed to the coming destruction. While difficult to prove with certainty, the historical tradition tells of the Christians in Jerusalem fleeing North to safety in Pella before Jerusalem was put under siege by the Romans.

Finally, and related to the point above, the destruction of Jerusalem is a key component of the debate over Jesus’s deity and the date of the New Testament’s writing. Skeptics point to Jesus’s prophetic words and argue as follows: “There is no such thing as prophecy; the gospels record Jesus speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem; therefore, the gospels must have been written after 70 AD.” Christians, on the other hand, accept the historical accuracy of the gospels, including the accuracy and historicity of Jesus’s words in the Olivet Discourse. We can look at Jesus’s words and see that what He declared would happen did indeed come true. He was a prophet, and more than a prophet. The fact that the New Testament never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem – not even to say, “This fulfills Jesus’s words” – is a good indicator that the entire New Testament was written before 70 AD and that Jesus’s words are genuine, not put into His mouth after the fact. Ultimately, it comes down to presupposition. If you begin with the assumption that there is no God and therefore no prophecy, then you must have the words of the Olivet Discourse written after 70 AD and put into Jesus’s mouth after the fact. If, on the other hand, you hold open the possibility of God and prophecy, then 70 AD is one more piece of evidence that Jesus is the Son of God and was able to foretell events that would occur decades later.

“If Only We Had Miracles!”

Why doesn’t God act miraculously to bring people to faith? Why doesn’t He act miraculously to validate my faith? It is true that God acts providentially to bring people to faith: “coincidences” in life, a timely conversation or sermon, etc. But wouldn’t it be so much easier if God were just constantly creating miraculous events? And wouldn’t people be more inclined to put their faith in Him? While we may be tempted to think along these lines, what we actually find in history is rather paradoxical: miracles generally do not lead people to put their faith in God.

Take, for example, what is probably the most miracle-saturated generation in history: the Israelites during the exodus from Egypt. These individuals witnessed God’s plagues upon Egypt, participated in the crossing of the Red Sea, witnessed God’s glory on Mount Sinai, and were miraculously provided for in the wilderness. You would think that these people more than any others would be inclined to put their faith in God. But, as Paul writes about this generation in 1 Corinthians 10:5, “Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” Despite the abundance of miracles, the people groaned and complained; they created for themselves a golden calf to worship; and once they made it to the promised land, they refused to trust God and enter it. The generation witnessing the most miracles proved to be an exceptionally faithless generation.

We see this pattern also in Jesus’s time as well. While some individuals were convinced about Jesus based on His miracles, many people saw His miracles simply as a good way to get free food (John 6:26). Despite seeing so many miracles, the Jewish leaders asked for more (John 12:37). Even on the cross, they demanded “just one more sign” so they would believe in Him (Matthew 27:42).

You see, even if we think they will – and even if someone claims to simply need to see one in order to become a Christian – the fact is that miracles are not the cure for unbelief. When Jesus speaks of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man insists that if only someone would rise from the dead, then his brothers would heed the warning and repent. What is the response? “[Abraham] said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:31).

The answer to unbelief is not miracles, but the Word of God: “Moses and the Prophets” and the writings of the New Testament. “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). God tells us that His very words have power. The Holy Spirit is able to wield His sword (Ephesians 6:17) and strike the heart of those who hear, “piercing to the division of soul and spirit.” The question for us is, do we trust the power of God’s words? If we do trust that power, then we will recognize that we do not need miracles, but the faithful proclamation of Scripture. We proclaim God’s words, and pray that those who hear might have their hearts pierced with the truth and power of the Word of God. May we pray for faithful proclamation and that God would use that proclamation to add ever more people to His kingdom.

Why We Sing A Cappella in Church

Over the past several weeks, a brief history of the use (or non-use) of instruments in the Church’s worship has been sketched. The main point I wished to drive home was that, while a cappella worship is strange in our culture today, it is absolutely not strange when the entire breadth of Christian history is taken into account. In this article, I would like to briefly sketch three reasons why we, along with many others throughout history, choose to worship with a cappella singing in our assemblies.

Silence of the New Testament

When it comes to the New Testament Church, the silence on musical instruments is deafening. In the Old Testament, musical instruments are associated especially with David and the temple. Many of the Psalms make refer to instruments and instructions were given for the Levites to play musical instruments within the temple. But when we read through the New Testament, we find no reference to instruments in the worship of the early Church. There is mention of Jesus and the disciples singing, and of the early Church singing, but absolutely no mention of them making use of musical instruments. Why is that? This silence should be a red flag causing us to inquire further, not plow forward without a second thought. The fact that the New Testament mentions singing and prayer, but makes no reference to the early Church using instruments certainly gives the impression that the early Church was in fact not using instruments.

The True Instrument of Praise is the Heart

Not only are instruments not mentioned, but where singing is explicitly mentioned, it is the heart that is identified as the true instrument of praise (Eph 5:17–21, Col 3:16). It’s also worth noting that Paul contrasts intelligible speech with “lifeless instruments” in 1 Cor 14:7. As Paul makes clear in all of these passages, it is the meaning and understanding of spiritual words, not merely sounds being produced, that constitutes the true spiritual worship of the Church. The addition of instruments, while entertaining and emotionally moving, cannot add to the intelligibility of the words sung, but can only detract. Therefore, they have no place in our worship service.

Maturity of the Church

A final reason for excluding instruments from the Church’s assemblies is recognizing that the Church is the mature form of God’s people. The Mosaic Law, animal sacrifice, the temple, incense, Levites, priests, etc. were given for a period of time in order to teach the people, lead up to the Messiah, and to serve as foreshadows of what was to come (see Galatians 3:19–24 and practically all of Hebrews). With the death and resurrection of Jesus and the establishment of the Church, the old “immature” things were done away with. This included the Mosaic Law, the sacrifices, and the temple with its ordinances. Now, here is the question before us: do the musical instruments of the Old Testament fall within the category of “immature” things that are done away with in the Church? The Church for several hundred years answered in the affirmative, and I believe they are correct. The harps and lyres and cymbals – all of the musical instruments associated with the temple – are in the same category as the temple sacrifices, incense, Levites, and priesthood. While there is not a specific verse stating this explicitly, the book of Hebrews, combined with passages such as Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:17–21, would certainly seem to point in this direction.

While there is more to be said on this subject, that’s all I’m going to say for the time being. I hope this series on instruments in worship has been beneficial to you. God bless.

A Cappella Worship Service: Setting the Context, pt. 3

Over the past couple of weeks, the history of musical instruments in worship service has been briefly surveyed. This week, we’ll consider specifically the Restoration Movement.

As with other reform movements, the Restoration Movement began with a rejection of instruments in worship. The movement was based on a call to strict faithfulness to the Bible for the sake of truth and unity. Therefore, what is done in worship must be approved of in the New Testament. For the first several decades there was no great controversy regarding instruments in worship. Nevertheless, by the 1850’s the seed of the future controversy was growing. In 1851, after hearing of some congregations adding instruments to worship, Alexander Campbell publicly denounced the practice and concluded that “to all spiritually-minded Christians, such aids [i.e., instruments] would be as a cow bell in a concert” (Millennial Harbinger, September 1851). Which congregations had added instruments is not known, and they must have been few in number.

The first congregation of the Restoration Movement on record for adding instruments to worship was the congregation in Midway, KY which added a melodeon in 1860. The addition was not made without controversy both internal and external. Internally, though in the minority, there were many members opposed to instruments in worship. One such member, Adam Hidler, went so far as to break into the church building at night and steal the melodeon (The Search for the Ancient Order, vol. 2, pg. 312). While his method of protest is morally questionable, his zeal is admirable. Externally, the addition of the melodeon at Midway led to a flurry of articles and counter-articles in the various brotherhood journals. Perhaps it could be called the first battle of Midway.

The debate over instrumental worship was sidelined shortly after it began by the American Civil War. During the war years, focus was turned to the question of participating in the war and to efforts at maintaining unity in the Church as the nation was torn in two. In the decades following the Civil War, however, the debate resumed. More and more congregations began adding instruments to worship and the argument grew more and more heated.

For several decades, efforts were made to keep the congregations of the Restoration Movement united, but the reality of “irreconcilable differences” continued to exert itself. At the heart of the matter were two conflicting approaches to Scripture; the addition of instruments was really a symptom of the deeper issue. Was anything not expressly prohibited by the New Testament acceptable in worship? Or, must any practice included in worship have express New Testament permission? How one answered such questions in large part determined one’s opinion on instruments in worship. Over time, the difference in these two approaches led more and more congregations to split or break fellowship due to the addition of instruments. The division was a reality for many years before becoming official in 1906, when the U.S. census for the first time split the Restoration Movement into two groups: Disciples of Christ (those with instruments) and churches of Christ (those without instruments).

A Cappella Worship Service: Setting the Context, pt. 2

Last week we pointed out how a cappella music in worship, far from being an oddity, was the norm throughout the early Church. This week, we’ll pick up with the Protestant Reformation and consider some subsequent developments. One trend that is seen especially during this time period is the connection between Church reform and the rejection of instrumental music in worship.

At the time of the Reformation, two attitudes towards instrumental worship in the Church arose. On the one hand, Lutherans and Anglicans, seeking to maintain as much continuity with then-current practice as possible, maintained instrumental worship. On the other hand, the Reformed branch (those influenced by Calvin and Zwingli, such as Presbyterians) and the Anabaptists rejected instrumental music in public worship. Their argument for doing so is simple and familiar: the New Testament does not authorize it, the early Church rejected it, and the corrupted Roman church introduced it.

Over time, however, the descendants of these movements began reintroducing instruments into worship, but not without protest. Within Presbyterianism, for example, there remains a significant branch that continue to insist on a cappella worship. In fact, as I write this, I have before me a book published by a Presbyterian publishing house titled Joyful Voices: A Cappella Singing in Congregational Worship. Baptists are another group which have a history of rejecting instruments in worship. For example, Charles Spurgeon, while giving freedom to other congregations to do otherwise, nevertheless strongly insisted on a cappella music within the congregation he led. Today, the group known as Primitive Baptists continues the practice of a cappella worship.

As mentioned above, the Anglican Church continued to use instruments in worship; however, the early leaders of Methodism (which began as a reform movement within Anglicanism) rejected instruments in the Church. Adam Clarke, Methodism’s most influential biblical commentator, is worth quoting at length on this topic. In his commentary on Amos 6:5, Clarke writes, “I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music in the Christian Church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion and that they are sinful… I here declare that I never knew them productive of any good in the worship of God; and have had reason to believe that they were productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire: but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor.” Clarke then goes on to quote John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, as quipping, “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither HEARD nor SEEN.”

Again, the argument so far is not that, because John Wesley and Adam Clarke agree with a cappella worship, therefore it is correct. The point simply remains that there is very strong historical precedence for a cappella worship in the Church. Next week, Lord willing, we’ll consider the great American reformation movement, commonly referred to as the Restoration Movement. Here too, as we will see, is a call to biblical faithfulness which leads to an insistence on a cappella music. But, as is the trend throughout history, we will also see how subsequent generations moved away from that original position.

A Cappella Worship Service: Setting the Context, pt. 1

“Oh, you’re the ones with no instrument.” Perhaps you’ve heard that before. One of the “distinctives” of churches of Christ is a cappella singing during worship. That we do not have a band or even a piano is considered by many to be an oddity. And it is true that in our 21st century American context a cappella music is an oddity. After all, in any given town the largest churches are likely going to be Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, or Non-Denominational – all of which make more or less use of instrumental music in worship. However, when the entire history and scope of Christianity is taken under consideration, we quickly find that a cappella worship, far from being an oddity, is well within the historical norm of Christianity. We are an oddity only in our current context. This fact helps us to see the reasonableness of our position.

To begin with, the very phrase a cappella means “as the chapel.” Unaccompanied singing was such the norm for a long enough time that “church singing” became synonymous with singing without instruments. That alone should help us see that by insisting on unaccompanied music in the public worship of the Church, we are not being weird or unreasonable.

Further, the early church, for many centuries, was uniform in its praise of a cappella worship and condemnation of instrumental music in worship. Significant leaders such as Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, John Chrysostom, and Basil of Caesarea are all on record as being against the use of instruments in public worship (see chapter 2 of A Cappella Music in the Public Worship of the Church, by Everett Ferguson for quotes from these men and others). John Chrysostom, writing in the 4th century, is representative when he says, “in olden times they were thus led by these instruments because of the dullness of their understanding and their recent deliverance from idols. Just as God allowed animal sacrifices, so also he let them have these instruments, condescending to help their weakness” (quoted in Ferguson, 67). For Chrysostom and others, instrumental music in worship was permitted by God due to the childishness of Israel; therefore, it has no place in the maturity of the Church.

This view prevailed until the Western church (what we know as the Roman Catholic Church) slowly introduced instruments into worship, possibly as late as the 10th century. Remarkably, this development only occurred in the West. In the East, in what is called the Eastern Orthodox Church, instruments were not introduced, even to this day. Consider that for a moment: the introduction of instruments was a late development of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, was a break from the consensus of earlier Christians, and was rejected by the Eastern churches. Why would we want to join the Roman Church of the Middle Ages in adding instruments to worship? Food for thought.

As we close this article, I want to reemphasize what we’re trying to accomplish at this time. The point is not that being in the majority or having the backing of John Chrysostom means we are right to insist on a cappella music. The point that I’m trying to emphasize is that by insisting on a cappella music, we are not oddities, but are quite normal within Christianity – the oddity was actually the addition of instruments.  Understanding this helps us to see that it is an absolutely reasonable position to insist on a cappella music in worship. Next week, Lord willing, we’ll consider the Protestant Reformation and some subsequent developments.

Objections to Baptism: Baptism is a Work, pt. 2

Having laid the foundation for this discussion last week, we will now lay out some arguments as to why baptism is not a work. As previously mentioned, the concept under discussion is that of salvation by grace, through faith, and apart from works as expressed by Paul in, for example, Ephesians 2:8–9. We must help others see that by “works” Paul does not have baptism in mind.

First, I would point out that the Paul who wrote Ephesians 2:8–9 is the same Paul who wrote Romans 6:1–4, 1 Corinthians 12:12–13, Galatians 3:26–27, Colossians 2:11–13, and Titus 3:4–5. He also spoke the words recorded in Acts 22:16. Paul obviously does not have any problem connecting baptism with salvation. Such a recognition should be a major red flag for those wanting to label baptism as a “work.”

Second, by “apart from works,” Paul does not mean “and you cannot do anything.” What Paul is doing in passages like Ephesians 2:8–9 is contrasting two systems of salvation: a system of grace and a system of works. A system of grace is one in which a gift is freely given by one to another. It is benevolent in nature. The gift is not earned and the recipient can lay no claim to having deserved the gift; the recipient can only render a “thank you.” Examples of such a system include a parent giving a gift to a child, or freely giving assistance to someone in need. This is the only system by which we can think of our relationship to God: he has given us the undeserved gift of salvation, and all we can return is “thank you.”

A system of works on the other hand is transactional in nature. In such a system, two people agree on specified deeds for specified pay. Upon completion of the deed, pay is given as proper due. There is no gift or “thank you;” there is work and earned pay. We all recognize such a system: it’s called a job. When you do your work and receive a paycheck, your boss is not being benevolent, he is giving you what you’ve earned. This is the type of thinking that a Christian absolutely cannot have when approaching God. As soon as we begin thinking of our actions (whether belief, baptism, prayer, good works, etc.) as somehow compelling God to act on our behalf, we have entered into a system of works-salvation, a system foreign to Christianity.

We must show that a system of grace still allows for the recipient of the gift to do something to receive the gift. Again, the recipient does not earn, but receives. By way of analogy, unwrapping a present in no way diminishes the fact that it is a present! But how about a biblical example: the exodus from Egypt. In the exodus, God is rescuing the Israelites because of His covenantal love for them. They are slaves, in need of rescue, and can only cry out to God – no earning salvation here. When God goes to rescue the Israelites from Egypt, He tells them to sacrifice a lamb and put the blood on their doorposts. Then, the people are to follow Moses to the Red Sea which God divides for them so they can walk across. Now, by sacrificing the lamb, putting the blood on the doorposts, following Moses, and crossing the Red Sea, do the Israelites in any way earn their salvation? Of course not. Did they have to do all those things to participate in the salvation God was bringing about? Yes! In the same way, we in no way earn salvation by baptism, even though we must do it to participate in the salvation brought about in Christ Jesus.

In short: baptism is not a proscribed work, but a prescribed act to receive the gift of salvation. I hope these articles on baptism have been helpful. May God bless you. Thanks for reading.

Objections to Baptism: Baptism is a Work, pt. 1

As mentioned last week, we now begin to address what I am convinced is the heart of the issue regarding the debate over baptism for the forgiveness of sins: is baptism a work? Appealing to the thief on the cross or arguing that Acts 2:38 means “because” are really symptoms of this deeper question. What I would like to do in this article is introduce this idea and to help the reader understand how much of a challenge it is for someone who has always thought of baptism as a work to adjust their point of view to see that baptism is not a work in the biblical sense. In the next article, Lord willing, we’ll go more into detail as to why baptism is not a work.

Now, credit where credit is due, most of those who argue that baptism cannot be for the forgiveness of sins because it is a work do so because they take seriously Paul’s words found in Ephesians 2:8–9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” We are saved by grace, through faith, and not by works – this is a biblical truth. In fact, this is THE biblical truth that led to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. (Somewhat ironically, Martin Luther, the hero of the Reformation, himself believed and taught that baptism was for the forgiveness of sins). So, insofar as a person is seeking to protect the biblical truth of salvation by grace, through faith, and apart from works they do well.

However, problems begin to arise when non-biblical definitions are applied to the biblical truth. This is most evidently the case when dealing with the concept of “works.” Through zeal to protect salvation by grace, or due to misunderstanding, or bad teaching – perhaps a combination of all those and more – many Protestants have come to define “works” as “doing anything.” Based on that definition, “salvation by grace, through faith, and apart from works” is then understood as “salvation by grace, through faith, and you are not allowed to do anything.” Now, you may be thinking, “what about belief or repentance or confession – aren’t those all doing something and, therefore, works by such a definition?” And you would be absolutely correct. I think it is fair to say that there is some inconsistency in this regard, people wishing to label baptism as a work while giving belief, repentance, and confession a pass.

But, looking past any inconsistencies, let’s pause and reflect for a moment on how difficult it is for a person who has always thought this way about baptism – who is zealous in their defense of salvation by grace, through faith – to adjust their frame of reference to see that baptism is not a work in a biblical sense. According to their thinking, a work is to do anything. Therefore, baptism is a work. Therefore, to allow it to be for the forgiveness of sins is nothing less than to destroy the gospel of God’s grace. This is what we must understand: in their minds, the gospel itself is at stake. To bring such a person to a proper understanding of baptism will require on their part a complete paradigm shift – a feat that is usually neither easy, nor quick, nor pleasant. We should not be surprised when such a person resists our arguments, no matter how biblically sound and persuasive. After all, changing our understanding of fundamental truths usually doesn’t happen without resistance. With that in mind, may we take Paul’s words to Timothy to heart: “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2). Thanks for reading. May God bless you.

Further Reading:

Objections to Baptism: Acts 2:38 Means “Because,” not “For”

And Peter said to them, “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” (Acts 2:38, ESV)

One of the clearest statements regarding the purpose of baptism is Acts 2:38. It is an abundantly clear statement: baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. If one wishes to argue that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38 must be dealt with. One common argument against the clear reading of this verse is to argue that the Greek word eis (“for”) can also mean “because” and that this is the proper translation of the verse. In that case, Peter’s statement should read, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins have been forgiven.” On this reading, a person is baptized, not to receive forgiveness of sins, but because their sins have already been forgiven. But is that a legitimate translation? No, it is not – let’s see why.

First of all, it is generally agreed within the academic realm that the idea of eis meaning “because” instead of “for” has been defeated. If you really want to dive into it, find the back-and-forth article debate by J.R. Mantey and Ralph Marcus in The Journal of Biblical Literature 70 and 71. But let’s be real, you probably don’t read Koine Greek or have any inclination to go digging through academic articles – and the same is true of your friend who’s arguing that we are baptized because we are forgiven. Since that’s the case, how might you approach this argument? I’d suggest two approaches:

First, take a look at the major English translations of the Bible. Grab a stack of them and look at them with your friend. Every one of them will say something along the lines of “be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” and not one of them will read “because your sins are forgiven.” The NRSV is perhaps the most explicit: “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.” Each of our major translations is the work of dozens of the very best Koine Greek specialists who come from a variety of backgrounds. Now, is it possible that all of our translations have misunderstood such a simple sentence? Realistically speaking, no. Since the translations are all very consistent and clear, the burden of proof falls on the person arguing that Acts 2:38 should read “because.” They must prove why their preferred translation is correct and all of the Greek specialists involved in translating our Bibles are wrong.

Second, after looking at various translations, grab one of them and turn to Matthew 26:28 where Jesus says, “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Notice the last part of the verse, “for the forgiveness of sins.” In Greek, as reflected in English, this statement is almost identical to “for the forgiveness of sins” in Acts 2:38. In both instances, eis is translated as “for,” not “because.” Is Jesus’s statement difficult to understand or confusing at all? No, it is straightforward and is understood by all who read it. Would we ever argue that Jesus’s blood is poured out “because sins are forgiven”? Of course not! Since we would never translate Matthew 26:28 with “because,” we also ought not translate Acts 2:38 in that way.

Further Reading