On Baptism

 

Rex Banks

 

 

 

Any serious discussion of baptism and its relationship to salvation inevitably involves a consideration of Acts 2:38 and Peter’s admonition to repent and be baptized “for (eis) the forgiveness of sins.”  Now it is quite clear that according to this verse (and others) baptism is essential for salvation, but unfortunately many of our denominational friends fail to draw this conclusion, and in many cases, this is due to the fact that they bring certain presuppositions to their study of the biblical teaching on baptism. Specifically, many have erroneously concluded that the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is simply incompatible with the idea that baptism is essential to salvation and consequently they approach Acts 2:38 having eliminated the very possibility that this could be the apostle’s teaching here.  Left with the need to provide some explanation for the phrase “for forgiveness of sins,” many faith-only advocates insist that we have here an example of “the causal use of eis,” by which they mean that in Acts 2:38, the preposition eis means “because of.”  Thus Peter is urging his hearers to be baptised because their sins have already been forgiven. What are we to make of this argument?

 

First of all it is significant that many lexicons do not even give a “causal use of eis.”  This is the case “(...because out of 1,773 occurrences of eis in the New Testament, only four might mean ‘because’), and those that do, admit that such a translation is at best controversial” (G. L. Reese, Commentary on Acts).  In a footnote, Reese notes that Arndt-Gingrich (Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature) “give no example of causal eis in the church fathers,” and that according to a scholarly source cited by these lexicographers “there is no example of causal eis in the papyri of the first century” (ibid).  On the other hand, Dana and Mantey claim that the use of eis in Matt 12:41 and Luke 11:32 provides “forceful evidence for a causal use of this preposition” (Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament).  They argue that Ninevites repented “because of” the preaching of Jonah.  Commenting upon Matt 12:41, D. A. Carson says that the phrase at the preaching of Jonah “cannot be final (meaning that it cannot mean with a view to or resulting in - Rex) but establishes the ground for the Ninevites repentance” (The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol 8, p.297, footnote).  Carson adds that this is a “rare use of eis.”  Citing Matt 12:41, Thayer has “at the preaching of one, i.e. out of regard to the substance of his preaching.”

 

However, not everyone is convinced that Matt 12:41 provides an example of causal eis.  According to J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, the Ninevites “repented into the preaching of Jonah.”  They explain:  “The meaning is that they repented so that they followed the course of life which the preaching prescribed” (The Fourfold Gospel). We are told that “This is not idiomatic English but it conveys the exact thought which a Greek would derive from the original.”  Along with most other commentators, McGarvey and Pendleton take the phrase “in the (eis) name of a prophet” (Matt 10:41) to mean “because he is a prophet”, but let’s keep an important point in mind:  it is one thing to say that this is what the phrase means, or what it amounts to, and quite another thing to say eis should be translated “because” here in Matthew 10:41.

 

Now if all this sounds confusing, let’s keep in mind that we have mentioned verses where “translation is at best controversial” (Reese) and that even those who argue for the causal use of eis acknowledge that such a use is “rare” (Carson).  As far as Acts 2:38 is concerned, there is simply no doubt that forgiveness of sins follows and is conditional upon scriptural baptism.  The phrase “for (eis) the forgiveness of sins” occurs in three other New Testament verses (Matt 26:28, Mk 1:4, and Lk 3:3) and clearly no one argues that Christ’s blood was poured out because sins had already been forgiven (Matt 26:28), or that John preached baptism of repentance to those who were already cleansed (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3).  Consistency is truly a rare gem.  Isn’t it equally clear that if Peter’s hearers were already forgiven in Acts 2:38, then Acts 2:40 makes no sense at all?  Why would the apostle urge saved people to “Be saved from this perverse generation?”  Salvation comes later, when “those who had received his word were baptised” (Acts 2:41).  Note too the connection between the two verbs “repent” and “be baptized.”  Both repentance and baptism are said to be “for the forgiveness of...sins” and certainly no one argues that Peter is urging his hearers to repent because they have already been forgiven.  Attempts have been made to drive a wedge between the two verbs (“repent” and “be baptised”) but “This interpretation compels us either to do violence to the construction, or to throw the argument or the course of thought in the context into complete confusion” (J. W. Wilmarth).

 

Discussions of the preposition eis in Acts 2:38 by the grammarians are also instructive:

 

·        Thayer notes the use of eis in connection with the verb baptise (p.185) and refers us to his treatment of this verb elsewhere (p.94).  There, he cites Acts 2:38 and explains the meaning of the relevant phrase as “to obtain the forgiveness of sins.”

 

·        In the Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, vol 1, p. 539, Albrecht Oepke discusses the syntactical connections of the verb baptise and cites Acts 2:38 (among other verses) to show that “eis is mostly used finally to denote the aim sought and accomplished by baptism” (emphasis mine).

 

·        C. F. D Moule quotes Acts 2:38 as an example of the use of eis to mean “with a view to, or resulting in - i.e. final or consecutive (sense)” (An Idiom-Book Of New Testament Greek, p.70).

 

·        In his New Commentary on Acts, J. W. McGarvey quotes “the testimony of two eminent philologists” Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer and C. L. Wilibald Grimm.  According to McGarvey, “Meyer says under Acts 2:38: ‘eis denotes the object of the baptism, which is the admission (remission?) of the guilt contracted in the state before repentance.’”  We also read that “Grimm, in his great lexicon of the Greek New Testament defines ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ Acts 2:38, ‘to obtain the forgiveness of sins.’”

 

Clearly these word specialists cite Acts 2:38 because Peter’s use of eis here provides an excellent example of the use of this preposition to speak of the aim, purpose, end, goal and suchlike.

 

Finally, a word about the treatment of “eis” by Daniel B. Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) in his 1996 book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.  Professor Wallace makes his position clear when he considers the possibility that “The baptism referred to here is physical only, and ‘eis’ has the meaning of for or unto.”  Wallace argues:

 

“Such a view, if this is all there is to it, suggests that salvation is based on works.  The basic problem of this view is that it runs squarely in the face of the theology of Acts , namely: (a) repentance precedes baptism (cf Acts 3:19 ; 26:20 ), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God , not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf v 47]; 13:38-39,  48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18).”

 

Now of course it is simply not true that baptism is a work of merit and that the doctrine of salvation by grace is threatened if baptism is essential to salvation.  However, Wallace’s discussion of Acts 2:38 is instructive.  He tells us that “An interesting discussion over the force of ‘eis’ took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.”  He explains that “J. R. Mantey argued that ‘eis’ could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38” adding:  “It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal eis was not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38.”  Wallace continues: 

 

“On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s non-biblical examples of a causal eis so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation:  It is quite possible that eis is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal eis cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability.  If, therefore, Professor 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 ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal ‘eis’ fell short of proof.” 

 

It is sad that many of our denominational friends approach Acts 2:38 having ruled out the very possibility that baptism is essential to salvation.  They fail to appreciate that baptism is not a work of law wherein one may boast (Rom 3:27; Gal 2:9) but rather a simple act of humble obedience whereby an individual takes possession of a gift freely offered by God on the basis of Christ’s sacrificial death.  Paul specifically sets baptism (“the washing of regeneration”) in contrast with “deeds which we have done in righteousness” and connects it to that salvation which is “according to His mercy” (Tit 3:5).  Could it be that in our desire to see our friends enter the kingdom of God and enjoy eternal life, we fail to focus enough upon the source of salvation - the blood of Christ? Oepke reminds us that:

 

“The significance of baptism...depends on the fact that it is a real action of the holy God in relation to sinful man.  Hence both a superstitious and also a purely symbolic understanding are excluded...  Standing in a definite and absolutely indispensable historical context, baptism derives its force from the reconciling action of God in Christ, or more exactly from the atoning death of Christ” (p.540).

 

We must take care to assure our denominational friends that we believe in salvation by grace.  We must also take great care to explain the difference between a work of faith and a work of law.  Perhaps then, the truth of Acts 2:38 will not be resisted so strenuously.