[1] Some baptismal regenerationists affirm that the Holy Spirit
is received immediately after baptism. Others add requirements not found in
Acts 2:38 by any stretch of the imagination; for example, Oneness
Pentecostalism makes speaking in tongues after baptism a necessary sign of the
receipt of the Spirit (see “Salvation, the Spirit, and Tongues,” pgs. 197-213, Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity,
Gregory A. Boyd, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1992). Roman Catholicism teaches
that “the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation [which generally takes place
years after infant baptism] is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once
granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost,” so that what Peter preached
in Acts 2:38 is received only after a bishop “anoint[s] the forehead of the
baptized with sacred chrism . . . together with the laying on of the minister’s
hand and the words . . . ‘Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit’” (sections
#1302, 1320, pgs. 330, 333, Catechism of
the Catholic Church, Mahweh, NJ: Paulist Press, 1994). Apparently Peter’s promise “ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” to his audience upon complying with Acts
2:38 would have been better stated as “ye shall only receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost if, continuing faithful for some time after baptism, ye speak in
tongues/get oil put on your forehead by a properly ordained bishop [or priest
if it is an extreme emergency and you may die without the seal of the Holy
Spirit] and submit to other ritualistic requirements.”
[1] It is noteworthy that most baptismal
regenerationists believe that baptism only forgives past sins, not all sin, but
Peter never makes this qualification in Acts 2:38. Would not “Repent, and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ in order to receive the forgiveness of past
sins,” or “in order to receive the forgiveness of some sins,” have been more
appropriate?
[1] Some who reject
baptismal regeneration hold other views on the verse. For Acts 2:38 to function as a proof-text for
advocates of forgiveness by baptism, they must prove the text teaches the
ordinance is administed “in order to receive” remission of sins. Opponents of baptismal salvation do not need
to prove anything from Acts 2:38. They
simply must show that it can reasonably mean something other than that baptism
is a prerequisite to forgiveness. Having
accomplished this, the verse can no longer be used as a proof-text to (attempt)
to negate the immense numbers of verses that clearly promise eternal life to
all believers.
[1] This statistic
was obtained by a search of the Greek Textus
Receptus using Accordance Bible
software. The same figure is given on
pg. 357 of Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics, Daniel Wallace (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1996).
[1] In
the best (and the standard) New Testament lexicon, BDAG, (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian
Literature, (BDAG), 3rd ed., rev. & ed. Frederick William Danker,
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), the preposition eis has ten listed main definitions,
with twenty-nine subheadings classifying different senses under the main
headings.
[1] “Eis . . . [can be] use[d] . . . causally
[as] ‘on account of,’ . . . Matthew 12:41. . . . [In] Matthew 10:41 . . . the
sense here called for is a causal one, for which the preposition eis is suitable, just as the Semitic
equivalent le admits not only a final
but also a causal sense” (para. 98, 106, Biblical
Greek Illustrated by Examples, Maximilian Zerwick. Eng. ed. Joseph Smith. Rome:
Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963). Eis
can mean “because of” (pg. 103, A Manual
Grammar of the Greek New Testament, H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1957).
Concerning “eis . . . some
contexts would certainly suit a causal sense: Matthew 3:11, because of repentance . . . 10:41;
12:41=Luke 11:32 metenoesan eis to
kerugma Iona: they repented because
of the preaching of Jonah . . . Acts 2:38 be baptized eis aphesin ton hamartion, on the basis of . . . Acts
7:53; Romans 4:20, on account of the
promises of God, Abraham did not waver . . . Romans 11:32 God has imprisoned
all because of disobedience . . .
Titus 3:14, to maintain good works, because
of the compelling need of them; Hebrews 12:7 [v. l.], you are enduring because
of discipline . . . 1 John 5:10” (pgs. 266-267, 18:4:1c, Moulton, J. H. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 4
vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908-76. Vol. 3 (1963): Syntax, by Nigel Turner). See J. R. Mantey, “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951)
pgs. 45-48, and “On Causal Eis
Again,” Journal of Biblical Literature
70 (1951) pgs. 309-311. In addition to
quoting Matthew 3:11; 12:41; Acts 2:38, and other inspired texts as examples of
a causal (“because of”) use of eis in
the New Testament, Mantey provides evidence from uninspired Greek, such as
Genesis 4:23 (LXX): Andra apekteina eis trauma emoi kai neaniskon eis molopa emoi, “I
killed a man for [on account of]
wounding me, and a young man for [on
account of] striking me.” Mantey also
mentions contemporary secular Greek examples such as Lucian, The Dead Come to Life, Vol. III, 12: ta hremata panu hetairika, kai epainoumene
hupo ton heraston eis kallos echaire, “Her words are always those of a
courtesan, and she delighted in being praised by her lovers for [because of] her beauty.” B. H. Carroll provides evidence “from
Aristophanes: ‘To jeer at a man eis
his rags’ . . . [f]rom Plato . . . ‘To differ from one eis virtue.’ . . . [He concludes,] the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38 is . . . with reference
to remission of sins. I am willing to risk my scholarship on that” (pgs. 81-82,
An Interpretation of the English Bible,
sec. 8, “The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration (concluded): Acts 2:38,” elec.
acc. AGES Digital Software Library vol. 11, B. H. Carroll Collection. Rio, WI:
2006). Indeed, the “illustrations of . .
. [the usage of eis as] because of .
. . are numerous in the N. T. and the Koiné
[Greek outside of the Bible] generally” (Word
Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson, Nashville, TN: Broadman
Press, 1960, note on Acts 2:38).
[1] The preposition eis
can signify “to” and convey a meaning of “in order to” (e. g., Colossians
1:29), although this usage is hardly the predominant or majority one. However, it is not enough for the baptismal
regenerationist to show that the word may signify “in order to” in a few of its 1,767 appearances.
He must prove that it can signify nothing other than “in order to” in
Acts 2:38. If he does not prove this
sense is required in the verse, it does not establish his position.
[1] Some baptismal
regenerationists attempt to support their view that eis aphesin hamartion in Acts 2:38 (“for/on account of the
remission of sins”) means “in order to obtain” the remission of sins by
cross-referencing Matthew 26:28, which states that Christ shed His blood eis aphesin hamartion. However, this comparison of texts overlooks a
number of facts. The shedding of blood
by Christ, not our baptism, is in view in Matthew’s gospel. There are two other instances (aside from
Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28) where the eis
aphesin hamartion construction appears in the New Testament—Mark 1:4 and
Luke 3:3. In both of these instances,
the phrase is used in connection with baptism (unlike in Matthew 26:28) and
signifies “on account of the remission of sins.” To use Matthew 26:28’s eis aphesin hamartion to support the idea of baptism “in order to”
obtain remission of sins in Acts 2:38, while ignoring the sense of Mark 1:4 and
Luke 3:3, where the word baptism is
actually used with the phrase, is faulty exegesis. Furthermore, “remission of sins,” aphesin hamartion, is promised elsewhere
in Scripture to all who believe. Acts
10:43 states, “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever
believeth in him shall receive remission of sins (aphesin hamartion).” Acts
26:18 likewise reads, “[T]hey may receive forgiveness of sins (aphesin hamartion) and inheritance
among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”
[1] It is worth mentioning that, although the KJV
translates eis forty-eight different
ways, it never renders the preposition as “in order to.” Indeed, even Alexander Campbell’s own Bible
version, the Living Oracles, only
manages to render eis as “in order
to” in eleven out of its 1,767 appearances—and this eleven includes a number of
verses with an eis + to + infinitive
construction entirely unlike Acts 2:38.
Nevertheless, Campbell did remember to make Acts 2:38 one of the 0.6% of
references in his own Bible version where eis
is rendered “in order to.”
[1] In addition to
the very obvious Matthew 3:11, it is hard to see how “in order to” can fit many
other Biblical texts. Is Matthew 28:19
“in order to” obtain the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost? (Compare eis used with baptism and “name” in Acts 8:16; 19:5.) Is Mark 1:9 “in order to” obtain the Jordan
river? Is Acts 19:3 “in order to” obtain John’s baptism? Is 1 Corinthians 1:13 (also 1:15) “in order
to” obtain the name of Paul? Is 1 Corinthians
10:2 “in order to obtain” Moses? The
only remaining verses containing eis
and baptism can at least as easily signify “with respect to,” “on account of,”
or one of the other senses of eis. Not one verse must signify “in order to”
obtain (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3, 4; 1 Corinthians 12:13;
Galatians 3:27).
[1] Further
evidence that John’s baptism was not “in order to” the forgiveness of sins
comes from the lack of Pharisaical challenge to his ministry on that account
(cf. Matthew 3:7). Christ did claim the
power to forgive sin (although He did not baptize, John 4:2—note that the Lord
Jesus did “make” disciples before having them baptized, evidencing that one is
not made a disciple by baptism, but is one previous to it), and the Jewish
religious leaders contended with Him on that ground (Matthew 9:3; Mark 2:7;
Luke 5:21; 7:49). They did not make a
similar challenge to John because his baptism was not a means for the receipt
of forgiveness. It was an evidence that
pardon had already been received.
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, when
describing John’s baptism, stated that it was performed on account of already
forgiven sin, not in order to obtain forgiveness. “John, who was called the
Baptist . . . was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as
to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to
baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they
made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the
purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified
beforehand by righteousness” (Josephus, Antiquities
of the Jews, 18:5:2:117). Similarly
Eusebius, the first known writer in Christiandom to compose a church history,
slightly altered the statements of Josephus but agreeed with his conclusions,
writing: “John who was called the
Baptist . . . said that baptism would prove acceptable . . . only in those who
used it not to escape from any sins but for bodily purity, on condition that
the soul also had been previously cleansed thoroughly by righteousness” (Ecclesiastical History, I. XI:5, cited
in Loeb Classical Library ed., trans. Kirsopp Lake, pg. 81). While neither the writings of Josephus nor of
Eusebius are inspired Scripture, of course, if John publicly proclaimed that
his baptism was a prerequisite to forgiveness, would not the ancient historical
record have indicated, rather than contradicted, this view?
[1] “of you” (humon), is a second person pronoun in
the genitive case. It is a partitive
genitive (see pgs. 84-86, Greek Grammar
Beyond the Basics, Wallace) indicating the group from which each person was
derived.
[1] Ephesians
4:26-27 is an example:
Be ye angry (2nd person plural imperative)
and sin not (2nd person plural imperative)
[do]
not . . . let go down (3rd person singular imperative)
the
sun (nominative singular noun)
upon
your wrath
neither give place (2nd person plural imperative)
to
the devil.
Compare Joshua 6:10 (LXX, trans. Brenton):
And Joshua commanded the people, saying,
Cry not out (2nd person plural imperative)
nor
let any one hear (3rd person singular imperative)
your
voice, until . . the time to cry out, and then
ye shall cry out (2nd person plural future
indicative).