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)
Introduction
Does Peter in Acts 2:38 say that forgiveness of sins is received when one is baptized? This verse has been vigorously debated within Christianity since the time of the Protestant Reformation. The majority view throughout history, including that of the reformer Martin Luther, is that baptism is the point at which one receives forgiveness of sins. Beginning primarily with Huldrych Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, there arose a large segment of Protestantism that continues to argue that baptism, while maybe important, does not effect forgiveness of sins and is therefore not necessary for salvation.
Those who view baptism as being for the forgiveness of sins often point to Acts 2:38 as a plain statement in defense of their position. Those who hold the opposing view insist that in these verses forgiveness of sins is not dependent on being baptized. So does Acts 2:38 mean that baptism precedes forgiveness of sins or not?
The Plain Meaning Of Scripture
First, consider the fact that the plain and straightforward understanding of Peter’s command, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” is that in order to receive the forgiveness of sins one must repent and be baptized. If we were in a group of people and were given any instruction with the following form: “Everyone do X and make sure each one of you do Y for Z to happen”, we would have no confusion over what we are supposed to do. For Z to happen we need to do X and Y. If we allow the Bible to speak for itself we clearly see that the straightforward understanding of Acts 2:38 is that repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ effect the forgiveness of sins.
The Burden of Proof
Baptism precedes forgiveness in Peter’s speech. The burden of proof to show that Peter means anything other than this plain meaning falls on those who would argue that baptism is not connected to the forgiveness of sins. Several arguments have been raised to try and meet this burden of proof. Five of these arguments will be considered in this study:
Arguments Against Baptism For Forgiveness
1) We are not baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but because our sins are forgiven
2a) The commands to repent and be baptized are not connected because repent is 2nd person plural and be baptized is 3rd person singular
2b) The 2nd person plural pronoun in forgiveness of your sins does not match the 3rd person singular verb be baptized
3) You can’t build a theology out of one verse
4) My preacher/pastor/elder/favorite theologian says that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins
Argument #1: “for forgiveness of your sins” really means “because your sins are forgiven”
Possibly the most common argument to make baptism subsequent to forgiveness is to suggest that the Greek word eis (translated as for in the ESV, NIV, KJV, NASB and so that in the NRSV) should really be understood as meaning because of, so that Peter’s statement would read roughly “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins are forgiven”. The most evident problem for anyone, even those unfamiliar with the underlying Greek text, is that no major Bible translation renders Peter’s phrase in a way that would suggest one is baptized because his sins are forgiven.
Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28
Also note that Matthew 26:28, where Jesus says, “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”, has the same Greek construction with eis as is found in Acts 2:38. We would never think to say that Jesus’ blood was poured out because our sins are forgiven, and neither should we say that we are baptized because our sins are forgiven.
The Opinion of Greek Scholars
The causal-eis (i.e. eis = because of) position fares no better among scholars of ancient Greek texts. The classic refutation of the causal-eis position comes from an exchange between J.R. Mantey1 and Ralph Marcus2 in The Journal of Biblical Literature in 1951-2. Mantey attempted to show evidence of the use of the causal-eis in Greek literature; however, Marcus picks apart Mantey’s argument point by point and concludes the discussion with the following statement:
“If, therefore, Prof. Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.” (Marcus, 44)
In other words, there is no support for translating eis as because of in Acts 2:38. Marcus’ conclusion is accepted by both Daniel B. Wallace3 and Luther B. McIntyre Jr.4 who, although neither believes that baptism precedes forgiveness, concede that there is no argument in support of translating eis as because of. We will continue to argument #2 with the understanding that Acts 2:38 is properly translated for forgiveness of your sins and not because your sins are forgiven.
Argument #2a: repent is 2nd person plural while be baptized is 3rd person singular, so repent is connected to forgiveness, but not be baptized
This argument seeks to separate the command to repent from the command to be baptized. If the command to be baptized can be completely separated from the command to repent, then an argument could be formed to say that forgiveness of sins points back only to the command to repent (as opposed to the natural reading that the dual command to both repent and be baptized point forward to the affect of those actions: the forgiveness of sins).
However, historian Everett Ferguson5 dispenses with this argument quickly:
“the combination of a second-person plural imperative with a third-person singular imperative is common in Septuagint and early Christian literature and serves to individualize and make emphatic the need for each individual to do what is commanded.” (Ferguson, 168)
So instead of making baptism less important, pointing out that repent is addressed to the crowd in general while be baptized is addressed to each individual within the crowd serves to emphasize the importance of being baptized. The third argument is similar.
Argument #2b: The 2nd person plural pronoun in forgiveness of your sins does not match the 3rd person singular verb be baptized
This argument was defended by Luther B. McIntyre4, but his arguments were successfully met and countered by Ashby L. Camp6. McIntyre argues that the command to be baptized should be understood as a parenthetical statement relating to repent, not to for forgiveness of your sins. However, even if we were to concede that his argument is correct, he fails to show why this would make baptism not part of forgiveness of sins. Baptism would be a part of repentance which is still left connected to forgiveness. As Camp points out,
“In that case, the command that each person be baptized is an explanation of how their repentance is to be manifested for them to receive the forgiveness of their sins. Peter’s answer to their query is, “Repent, that is [καὶ], each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for forgiveness of your sins.” (Camp, 38)
Implicitly Plural
Also, as Jack Cottrell points out, while it is true from a technical, grammatical standpoint that the verb for be baptized is 3rd person singular, we cannot ignore the fact that be baptized is “emphatically pluralized by the immediately-following words, hekastos humōn, “each one OF YOU” (plural)…It is the exact same plural word used in the phrase “remission of your (plural) sins.””7
Excursus: Let’s Ask a Greek About Greek Grammar
John Chrysostom (c. 349-407AD) was a Greek Christian known for his eloquent preaching. An extensive collection of his sermons and writings survive, including a series of sermons on Acts. When expounding on Acts 2:38 this is what Chrysostom has to say,
““Repent,” says he, “and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ.” (v. 38). He does not yet say, Believe, but, “Be baptized every one of you.” For this they received in baptism. Then he speaks of the gain; “For the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” If you are to receive a gift, if baptism conveys remission, why delay?”8
Chrysostom’s View of Acts 2:38
This is not a question of Chrysostom’s theology, but of how he understands the Greek grammar of Acts 2:38. Does Chrysostom, thoroughly educated in the Greek language, have any concerns regarding the grammar of this passage such as whether baptism being 3rd person negates it’s connection to the 2nd person forgiveness? No. Does Chrysostom understand baptism to be connected to the forgiveness of sins? Yes. So we have a man who spoke and wrote in Greek, rather than posing a concern over the grammar of Acts 2:38, connecting baptism with forgiveness of sins. His understanding of theology could be questioned, but it would be silly to suggest that any scholar today has a better grasp of Greek grammar than Chrysostom had.
Argument #3: You Can’t Build A Theology From One Verse
A general study defending the necessity of baptism will be written in the future, this study is aimed at addressing Acts 2:38 specifically. However, two points will be made here:
1) If God says to do something once that makes it no less necessary than if he says it one hundred times
2) The necessity of baptism does not rely exclusively on this one verse. A sample of other verses includes Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11-13; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21
Argument #4: My preacher/pastor/elder/favorite theologian says that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins
There are many well educated and articulate men and women, who are otherwise faithful to the teachings of the Bible, who insist that baptism is not necessary for salvation and that Acts 2:38 does not mean that baptism effects forgiveness of sins. It’s a natural question to ask why this is the case.
I believe that a good argument can be made that in large part many of these people do not allow the plain meaning of the Bible to speak for itself at this point because they are blinded by an incorrect application of the slogan sola fide, faith alone. It’s not in the scope of this study to address this point, but those who are interested in hearing this argument would do well to consider Jack Cottrell’s points in his articles Tyranny of the Paradigm Part 2 (read all three parts of this series if you have the time) and Is Baptism a Work?.
Conclusion
The plain, straightforward understanding of Peter’s words in Acts 2:38 is that once one repents and is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ then their sins are forgiven. Baptism precedes forgiveness. While this may not set well with some people’s theology, we need to allow the Bible to define our beliefs and not allow our beliefs to define the teaching of the Bible. Instead of desperately seeking for a way to disconnect baptism from forgiveness of sins, let’s accept what Peter said as God’s revealed word and obey it in faith.
Further Reading
Notes
- Mantey, J.R., “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament” and “On Causal Eis Again”, The Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951): 45-48; 309-311
- Marcus, Ralph, “On Causal Eis” and “The Elusive Causal Eis”, The Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951): 129-130 and 71 (1952): 43-44
- Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes, p370
- McIntyre, Luther B., “Baptism and Forgiveness in Acts 2:38”, Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (January-March 1996) 53-62
- Ferguson, Everett, Baptism In The Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries
- Camp, Ashby L., “Reexamining the Rule of Concord in Acts 2:38”, Restoration Quarterly 39 (No. 1, 1997) 37-42
- Cottrell, Jack, http://jackcottrell.com/notes/answering-a-false-interpretation-of-acts-238/
- Chrysostom, John, Homily VII, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.vii.html
Studies in the Bible 