Q & A with Dr. Warren Vanhetloo

[Warren Vanhetloo]

Question

Dr. Van, I have a question about the origin of Baptism. I’ve always been taught it pictured the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. But according to Matthew 3, John was baptizing before Jesus died, even before he had even met Jesus. It then appears that believers (Jews?) displayed their faith in God by getting baptized. Any conjecture on why John seemed to come up with this idea at a time when it doesn’t mean what it means today?

Answer

No need for conjecture, there is enough in Scripture. There are several answers, and all are important.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight . and all flesh shall see the salvation of God (Luke 3:4-6).

First, God choose John to introduce something entirely new and different from the nation-centered dispensation of the Old Testament era. “The kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). John was sent to bear advance witness of a once-for-all-time revelation of the Light which lights every man who enters this world (John 1:3-9). Second, his water immersion was intended to prepare for a spiritual immersion to follow shortly (John 1:25-27): “I immerse with water, but…the same is He who immerses with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 33).

It is important to emphasize that God called and sent John to proclaim the greater work about to be revealed. His ministry had been predicted in the OT: “As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send My messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight” (Mark 1:2-3, Mal 3:1, Isa 40:3). Thus, John immersed in the wilderness and preached the immersion of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3).

Judaism had known ceremonial sprinklings and some forms of soaking and self-immersion, but prior to John there is no record of an immerser. Repentance was an inner thing. Immersion was an individual’s outward declaration of an inner change. Immersion gave a vague picture of drowning, of death, and as well of a coming forth to a changed life. The meaning of the symbolism was perhaps not clear until after the death and resurrection of Jesus. God chose the mode, not John. God used it as a picture which became more clear after what it portrayed became history.

baptism was not new. the Israelites wilderness wanderings had two instances of “baptism”. the death, burial, and resurrection could be seen by the dead Egyptians on the shore of the first while the “baptized” sang a song of deliverance. the Israelites were looking for “The Prophet like Moses” so they could obey Him.

to clarify my previous post: the main reason why the Red Sea crossing and Jordan crossing showed death, burial, and resurrection was probably the depth of the water as an illustration. the dead Egyptians sort of showed the natural consequences.

[Alex K.] to clarify my previous post: the main reason why the Red Sea crossing and Jordan crossing showed death, burial, and resurrection was probably the depth of the water as an illustration. the dead Egyptians sort of showed the natural consequences.

The post comments on that here..

[Vanhetloo] Judaism had known ceremonial sprinklings and some forms of soaking and self-immersion, but prior to John there is no record of an immerser.

I had actually not heard this before and it’s an interesting idea. I’ve always viewed John’s baptism as having overlapping but not identical significance to Christian baptism. Some of the differences are pretty obvious. In John’s day there is no church to identify with and initially no Jesus to identify with either.

I think we neglect the cleansing idea that is pictured in baptism as well…. perhaps because we are overreacting a bit to errors that identify cleansing in the act. I’m inclined to think that John’s baptism especially would have been understood as representative of cleansing more than of anything else.

hi Aaron,

the problem i have with the cleansing aspect is that the sacrificial system already provided cleansing.

innovation was never prescribed either in God’s call to the Jews: “return to the Lord” Dr. Van says it was something new, this baptism.

let me give you my source for this idea since he will present it better than i ever could: Rikk E. Watts in “Mark”, Commentary on the New Testament Use in the Old Testament (Beale & Carson editors)

Jack,

The remission of sins here is not tied to the baptism but to the repentance. If the baptism is providing remission in any way, you end up with baptismal regeneration.

Jack - you seem to be taking both sides of the argument. First you wrote:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

The Greek word translated “remission” means “to send off or away.” This is its fundamental meaning—to separate the sin from the sinner.

Then you wrote:

It is a mistake to assume that the “remission of sins” of which Peter spoke was in regard to “salvation” and not “fellowship” and “service.”

So is it to send away or draw near. What do you see the baptism doing here?

http://sharperiron.org/filings/10-31-10/16844] Dr. Warren Vanhetloo promoted to glory

[Jim Peet] http://sharperiron.org/filings/10-31-10/16844] Dr. Warren Vanhetloo promoted to glory

Thanks, Jim. I hadn’t heard.

He’ll be greatly missed by many. It’s likely we’ll do something front page about him soon.

Just to be clear, when I said the cleansing idea is neglected I did mean that there is any cleansing actually going on when a baptism occurs. Not now and not in John’s day. It’s always been about symbolism.

There is no need for complex theories that give baptism some kind of efficacy that is not saving but yet somehow restoring.

Chip… thanks for debating Jack on this. Care to continue? I don’t have time right now.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

My original point was that the remission is tied to the repentance (salvation) not to the baptism. Everywhere in Scripture, remission of sins is tied to repentance (salvation). Nowhere in Scripture is the church’s ordinance of baptism tied to anything other than symbolism. This is borne out here by the word usage.

The word “for” can mean “in order to” as in the sentence: “I got a ticket for the ball game.” Here, “for” means the ticket was acquired in order to attend the ball game.

However, the word “for” can also mean “because of” as in the sentence: “I got a ticket for speeding.” Here, “for” means the ticket was received as a result of the preceding event.

In Acts 2:38, the grammar could allow either usage of the word “for”. However, only one usage is compatible with the rest Scripture. With the second meaning in mind, Peter was saying: “Repent, and [then] be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ [because of] the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

The Baptism is a result of the remission, having no part in the remission.

The same grammar follows for the final phrase. The Holy Spirit is received as a result of repentance, not baptism. Everything in the verse- baptism, remission, receiving the Spirit - comes as a result of the repentance.

I appreciate your explanation, Bro. Emmerick. Sometimes I bookmark posts like this to read to my kids during Bible class- ya’ll’d probably be surprised by how helpful this site is and how it is used. :)

though i had this quibble on John’s Baptism with Dr. Van, i have always admired his scholarship and exposition.

promotion to glory-Hallelujah

I’ll bat for Chip a little here… he didn’t ask, so he might correct me but….

[Jack Hampton] Chip, in regard to Peter’s words at Acts 2:38 what translation of the Bible can you quote that supports you idea?

A better question would be whether he’s right about the grammatical possibilities and likelihoods. Translators can have a bunch of reasons for choosing a particular option where a preposition is ambiguous… especially if a bunch of them are, say, Anglican (the translators, that is—not the prepositions)

[JH] Here is the question again:

“Do you believe that on the day of Pentecost that those who believed what Peter preached were “born of God” the moment that they believed?”



Before a sinner could be baptized he first had to “believe,” …

The eunuch …

I believe that those who believed what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost were “born of God” the very second that they believed…

I don’t think any of this is in dispute. I’m pretty sure Chip’s answer would be yes, they first had to believe. He’s already made that pretty clear, since the view that baptism is undertaken as a result of remission of sins would pretty much require this.

1. Any translation that uses the word “for” in Acts 2:38

2. You were the one changing the subject, leaving the verse under discussion and turning to new passages. However, the answer to your secondary question:

“Do you believe that on the day of Pentecost that those who believed what Peter preached were “born of God” the moment that they believed?”

Yes - not that it has anything to do with your assertion that baptism in some way cleanses or restores fellowship between God and man.

This has nothing to do with Acts 2:38 - the discussion we were having before you jumped elsewhere. The remission is not tied to baptism, nor is it tied to baptism anywhere else in Scripture. The remission of sin is solely tied to the repentance. Baptism is commanded as a result of the repentance.

To the main point of the discussion: the NT ordinance of baptism does nothing to wash away sin or restore fellowship between sinful man and God - it has no cleansing power whatsoever. It is purely a symbolic act of obedience.

Furthermore, baptism does not correlate to OT sacrifice. Rather, Christ, the perfect substitutionary sacrifice correlates to the OT sacrifice. The reason it was repeated in the OT was because it was insufficient to provide true “remission of sins.” All that was received was an atonement, a temporary postponement of judgement in faithful expectation of a true substitutionary sacrifice yet to come.

There are several other secondary issues in your statements I do not have time to deal with now. But this is the crux of the discussion.

As you do so frequently, you simply disagree and disregard anything you do not like Jack.

There is no meaning given for that word which is “because” or “as a result of.” As a matter of fact, in the KJV that word is translated more than fifteen hundred times and it is never translated as “because” or “as a result of.”

By your own definition, eis can mean “for” - which is the KJV translation of eis 140 times! As I have already written, the English word “for” can mean “because of” or “in order to.” You simply repeat and support EXACTLY what I said! The translators did not need to translate eis as “because of” since they accurately conveyed that very thought by using the word “for.”

Your explanation of the passage is diametrically opposed to the normal understanding of the passage in every way. You fly in the face of grammar, context and everything Scripture says about baptism in order to try to make your convoluted reasoning stand up.

What you are proposing, baptismal washing, is so far removed from orthodox Christianity as to approach rank heresy.

Jack, let me see if I can simplify it enough for you to follow what I am saying. Still dealing with the NT ordinance of baptism in Acts 2:38. Lets try and stay focused on one passage (and one activity) at a time.

eis = for (one of many possible translations which will vary from context to context)

for = because of (one of multiple possible meanings which will vary from context to context)

Despite writing the words yourself, you still will not admit the grammatical possibility that eis can mean for and for often means because of. Instead you confuse the matter by reaching back to John the Baptist, certainly not practicing the same NT ordinance found in Acts 22:38.

Now you are even beginning to contradict yourself.

Post 12

Chip Van Emmerik wrote: What do you see the baptism doing here?

Jack Hampton wrote: Chip, I have already said that it was to send away sins.

Post 23

Jack Hampton wrote: Please get you facts straight. I am not saying anything about baptismal washing. I am saying that those who submitted to the rite of water baptism had their sins taken away. The water was symbolic.

Jack Hampton wrote: I say that the baptism of John was the same baptism which Peter preached except Peter’s had an added element. Those who were baptized with water received a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit.

You continue to contradict yourself, Jack. Now you are saying they are both the same, except that they are different.

Jack, you continue to say they are the same except where they are different.

Furthermore, you are dealing with different dispensations. I could sacrifice a lamb today, but it would not mean the same thing it did in the OT. John’s Baptism, whatever it was (not discussing that point right now) was not Peter’s baptism.

Jack, the following documentation is found at http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html

[iWhile both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”

One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis).



In addition to Acts 2:38, there are three other verses where the Greek word eis is used in conjunction with the word “baptize” or “baptism.” The first of these is Matthew 3:11, “baptize you with water for repentance.” Clearly the Greek word eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage. They were not baptized “in order to get repentance,” but were “baptized because they had repented.” The second passage is Romans 6:3 where we have the phrase “baptized into (eis) His death.” This again fits with the meaning “because of” or in “regard to.” The third and final passage is 1 Corinthians 10:2 and the phrase “baptized into (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Again, eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage because the Israelites were not baptized in order to get Moses to be their leader, but because he was their leader and had led them out of Egypt. If one is consistent with the way the preposition eis is used in conjunction with baptism, we must conclude that Acts 2:38 is indeed referring to their being baptized “because” they had received forgiveness of their sins. Some other verses where the Greek preposition eis does not mean “in order to obtain” are Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 19:3; 1 Corinthians 1:15; and 12:13.



The grammatical evidence surrounding this verse and the preposition eis are clear that while both views on this verse are well within the context and the range of possible meanings of the passage, the majority of the evidence is in favor that the best possible definition of the word “for” in this context is either “because of” or “in regard to” and not “in order to get.”

Jack, you can read more on this here http://www.biblefood.com/eis.html

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon does not list the specific meaning “because of” for “eis”. Just because we do not find something in a Greek Lexicon cannot be considered “proof” that a meaning does not exist. As noted above, the Thayer’s Lexicon missed the meaning “because of” in Matt 3:11, 12:41, and Rom 4:20, as well as Acts 2:38.



Kenneth Wuest notes that:



a. The work of Dana & Mantey in the Greek papyri find the use of “eis” as “because of”, and demonstrate this usage in the N.T. examples also of Matt 12:41, where the men of Ninevah repented at (eis = because of) the preaching of Jonah, and Rom 4:20, where Abraham did not staggar at (eis = because of) the promise of God.



b. That “because of” is the correct translation of “eis” in the context of baptism and Acts 2:38 is demonstrated by Matt 3:11, where John said “I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis = because of) repentance”. John himself, in Matt 3:7&8 told the unbelieving Pharisees and Sadducees that came to see his baptism, that they needed to produce works that demonstrated repentance. He did not tell them that his baptism would produce repentance. Repentance first, then baptism.



c. Add to this the testimony of the Jewish historian Josephus, who lived during the time of Christ and wrote about what he saw. Josephus wrote in his book “Antiquities of the Jews”, in Book XVIII, chapter V, paragraph 2, that John only baptized men AFTER they had repented: John “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, [or the remission] of some sins [only] , but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness”.



2. What did the King James Version translators intend “for the remission of sins” to mean, when they translated Acts 2:38? The W.W. Skeat Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, first published in 1879, only lists ONE definition of the English word “for”, and that is “in place of”. Skeat, being a dictionary of the English language of the middle 1800’s, is very close to the language of William Shakespeare and the King James translators. So, even the King James translators apparently intended to translate the Greek word “eis” with the meaning “in the place of”, meaning that baptism is a visible picture of the forgiveness of sins that God had already granted. The problem sometimes is that we are trying to understand language written many years ago using our MODERN understanding of the English language! Our modern dictionaries now list as many as 21 different meanings for the English word “for”!

Jack, I provided an answer as it pertains to the discussion.

Go back.

Read it slowly.

Take your time.

And stop trying to change the direction of the conversation. Focus like a laser beam.

Jack Hampton wrote: Also, you want to use things from John’s baptism to make your point but when questioned about the points which you attempted to make all of a sudden you have no answers. What are you trying to hide? Why will you not answer my questions?

Jack, I haven’t hidden anything. I have answered all of your questions, as they pertain to the discussion of Acts 2:38. As I have repeatedly stated very plainly, I am simply refusing to permit you to obfuscate the discussion on Acts 2:38 by dragging us through the countryside.

You, on the other hand, refuse to deal with the topic at hand.

- You try to redirect the discussion to other topics

- You ignore factual data - such as the undisputed use of eis in several passages to mean

“because of” rather than “in order to” to name only one specific instance

If you are unwilling to remain on topic and deal with the facts of the issue, you make it impossible to carry on any kind of meaningful discussion together.

While it is fair to indicate you believe a person’s argument is incorrect and to address those issues with passion and conviction, it is a violation of the http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy] Comment Policy to speculate about another person’s character or motives. Therefore, questions like “What are you trying to hide?” are inappropriate. Any further comments along these lines will be edited or unpublished. Refusal to comply with site policy may result in removal from forum participation.

Please do not use this thread to discuss moderator action (because that would be off-topic). If you have questions or concerns, contact the mod team via PM or email.

Thanks.

***End Moderator Note***

First, Thanks Jack. I hope you will let me know if you feel I have crossed the line in our conversation. Susan’s interjection was a good reminder to me to keep my electronic tongue in check.

Second, I agree that the word “and” creates an association in the verse. However, the grammatical structure with the comma after repent and the conjunction “and” indicates two sentences, both with an understood “you” as the noun. IOW, “(You) repent, and (you) be baptized.

For the remission of sins is a prepositional phrase attached to the baptism in the second sentence, not to the repentance in the first sentence.

The discussion has revolved around the meaning of the prepositional phrase and how it describes baptism in the second sentence.

I do not follow your assertion that repentance is because of remission.

C’mon Jack. Claiming there is no punctuation is disingenuous. The fact that Greek did not have punctuation does not mean there were no parts of speech or grammatical structure in the original language. It only means that structure was conveyed in a different way than in English. In fact, Greek grammar was highly structured as a language. The translators inserted English punctuation into the English translations to convey in the receptor language the same grammatical sense contained in the original.

In English, the presence of the comma indicates the “and” is joining two sentences, not a compound verb.

Furthermore, even if we have a compound verb (repent and be baptized), the prepositional phrase would not have to modify both verbs. But, as I made clear already, that is beside the point.

Not sure why you took off to another verse, again. Is it because of the grammatical construction? Yes, there is a comma followed by an “and.” However, the construction differs completely from Acts 2:38.

1. The comma with the “and” does not create two independent clauses but sets of the word “then.”

2. Furthermore, the very meaning of repent (to change one’s mind) indicates a turning (convert in the KJV). You cannot have true repentance without turning. They are essentially the same action.

3. Finally, you are dealing with grammatical apples and oranges. The prepositional phrase here is “to God” which clearly is attached to one specific verb - “turn”, not both verbs. “So” is a coordinating conjunction here which ties two clauses together. The purpose and function of the coordinating conjunction here is entirely different from the purpose and function of the prepositional phrase in Acts 2:38. This does nothing to support your assertion. In fact, your example only supports what I have been saying all along.

Jack, the final “and” is again a coordinating conjunction - in every translation I can find - set off by either a comma or a semicolon. The final clause regarding the Holy Spirit is a completely new sentence and is NO WAY attached to the prepositional phrase under discussion. It is a result, once again, of the original verb repent - i.e. get saved and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Jack, you keep slipping in absolute statements and jumping from one argument to another, but your arguments are all smoke and mirrors. Let’s summarize.

1. Your position, that baptism somehow washes us, is unorthodox in church history

2. Baptismal washing is nowhere associated in scripture with the NT ordinance

3. Both the Greek word eis and the English word for undeniably mean “because of” in certain situations and absolutely can here, which is the best understanding to harmonize this passage with the rest of scripture

4. The grammatical construction in no way requires the prepositional phrase to modify both verbs; indeed, in half or more of the translations I have seen it cannot modify repent because it is placed in an entirely different sentence

5. Even the most rudimentary hermeneutics requires the understanding of the passage the baptism comes as a result of the remission of sins

No matter how you try to massage the facts, they remain plain.

[Jack Hampton]

[Chip Van Emmerik] Jack, the final “and” is again a coordinating conjunction - in every translation I can find - set off by either a comma or a semicolon.

Chip, I am not sure what you mean when you speak of “the final ‘and’ ” but here the “and” connects the word “repent” with “be baptized”:

This has to do with how the gift of the Spirit is associated to repentance.

In this translation the “and” is not set off by either a comma or a semicolon. You continue to insist that the words of Peter can only be rendered as being two seperate sentences despite the fact that no other translations of the Bible renders Peter’s words in that way.

No I didn’t. I said in that rendering the grammar can only indicate two sentences. I dealt with the renderings lacking the comma in another portion of the post.

The word “and” followed by a comma certainly does not indicate the end of a sentence, as you would have us believe. It only represents “the smallest interruption in continuity.”

So… Are you denying that a compound sentence separated by the conjunction and must have a comma, regardless of how small the interruption is?

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn.1:9).

This is a cleansing of sin that is for those who are already saved.

True, but it has NOTHING to do with baptism in any way.

And you speak of the “translations” where the rendering of Acts 2:38 is according to “different sentences.” Please give me one translation where the words “(You) repent” is one sentence and then “(You) be baptized” is another sentence. Just one!

The one we have been using! Any translation that has a comma before the and (repent, and be baptized) grammatically requires an understanding of two sentences.

Even the most rudimentary hermeneutics requires the understanding of the passage the baptism comes as a result of the remission of sins.

If that is true then the same rudimentary hermeneutics requires the understanding that repentance as well as baptism comes as a result of the remission of sins.

Absolutely not. As I have repeatedly shown, the grammatical structure and resultant rules are completely different between the two sections of the verse.

Kenneth Wuest notes that:

That “because of” is the correct translation of “eis” in the context of baptism and Acts 2:38 is demonstrated by Matt 3:11, where John said “I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis = because of) repentance”. John himself, in Matt 3:7&8 told the unbelieving Pharisees and Sadducees that came to see his baptism, that they needed to produce works that demonstrated repentance. He did not tell them that his baptism would produce repentance. Repentance first, then baptism.

Chip, you quote Wuest speaking of John’s baptism in order to support your views. But when I want to also discuss John’s baptism you say that I am straying from the subject we are discussing.

It is OK for you to speak of John’s baptism but when I want to answer your points in regard to that baptism you refuse to even discuss this matter. Why is it OK for you to bring into this discussion things in regard to John’s baptism but when I do the same thing I am rebuked? I find this very curious, to say the least.

Again, I have repeatedly answered your questions about John’s baptism, AS THEY PERTAIN to the discussion of Acts 2:38. However, I have steadfastly refused to allow you to drag the discussion off into unrelated tangents. John’s Baptism is not the same as the NT ordinance under discussion in Acts 2:38, not matter how many similarities they might share. Save the broader discussion of that passage for another discussion.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Jack, this verse you quoted is written as two sentences.

Repent, and be baptized. = 2 sentences by grammatical structure

Repent and be baptized. = 1 sentence by grammatical structure

This is the translation structure you were quoting until at least post 38.

You said nothing about the absence of the “comma” in that translation.

Previously answered the single sentence grammar.

Wow, Jack. For someone who writes so much, you sure have some gaping holes in your grammatical knowledge. Basic English grammar says that when two independent clauses are joined by a conjunction, a comma is used to separate the clauses.

From your resource grammarbook.com

Rule 12. Use a comma to separate two strong clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction—and, or, but, for, nor. You can omit the comma if the clauses are both short.

Examples: I have painted the entire house, but he is still working on sanding the doors.

I paint and he writes.

(Omitting the comma between two sentences joined with a conjunction is new to me, and I would have to verify to be sure this is accurate. However, if true, it only strengthens my argument as it would then apply to all of the translations you and I have looked at)

Rule 14. A comma splice is an error caused by joining two strong clauses with only a comma instead of separating the clauses with a conjunction, a semicolon, or a period. A run-on sentence, which is incorrect, is created by joining two strong clauses without any punctuation.

Incorrect: Time flies when we are having fun, we are always having fun. (Comma splice)

Time flies when we are having fun we are always having fun. (Run-on sentence)

Correct: Time flies when we are having fun; we are always having fun.

OR

Time flies when we are having fun, and we are always having fun. (Comma is optional

because both strong clauses are short.)

OR

Time flies when we are having fun. We are always having fun.

(Bold added)

[Jack Hampton] But of course you understand that if your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is to be defended then you must make what is obviously “one” sentence into “two.”

Of course, as I have stated repeatedly, I have already dealt with the grammatical possibilities of a single sentence containing compound verbs.

Thought this might be helpful:

There is debate over the meaning of εἰς in the prepositional phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν (eis aphesin toÒn hamartioÒn humoÒn, “for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins”). Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here. ExSyn 369–71 discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: (1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and εἰς has the meaning of “for” or “unto.” Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works - an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often 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); (2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts - especially in this text (cf. 2:41); (3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling εἰς, but its subtlety and awkwardness count against it; (4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15–16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, “Acts,” EBC 9:283–85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154–55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129–30; BDAG 290 s.v. εἰς 4.f.

As a completely unbiased observer (;)) I declare Chip the winner.

I think view #3 in the NET note is best. Though it suffers from a bit of awkwardness, #4 suffers from being a bit speculative: “Finally, it is possible that…” Most worthy of note in the NET note is the fact that the theology of Acts is clear regarding where faith and repentance fit into the picture. In Acts repentance consistently refers to turning to Christ in faith, not to something a person already in Christ does in response to sin in his life. (Acts 8:22 is a bit of an odd case, but probably still refers to an unbeliever and there is no link to baptism there in any case).

The meaning of “remission” is even less in doubt. It does not have reference to fellowship with God, per se, but is used pretty much as a synonym for becoming a Christian. Acts 10:43 uses the same word in reference to what happens when one believes.

Looking outside of Acts but still the usage of Luke, Luke 24:47 uses “repentance and remission of sins” as synonymous with the message of the gospel.

Matt.26:28 uses the same term to express what the shedding of Christ’s blood secured.

So it may be grammatically possible to to read Acts 2:38 to mean that baptism there is securing some kind of remission, it is not theologically possible when you compare Scripture with Scripture.

Jack,

Read the rule again. The grammar rule speaks to usage of a comma to separate “strong clauses” - i.e. independent clauses - i.e. sentences. While a period (or exclamation point or question mark) identify the end of a sentence, a comma is used with a coordinating conjunction to join two sentences. How can the rule be any plainer?

Charlie,

Appreciate the reference, though I assume Jack will dismiss it all because he insists he is not talking about salvation but some sort of cleansing of believers from sin after salvation - hence his attempt to tie this verse to 1 John 1:9.

Aaron,

Excellent point coming from a different angle than I have been looking at; I had not thought about working backwards from the definition and use of remission. This completely meshes with the points I have been making about how the rest of scripture rejects the concept of any kind of baptismal washing.

First, on the issue of the causal εις, I would like to see where in the NT, or anywhere in the Greek corpus, the preposition εις carries a causal (not telic or purposive) sense. I’m not dogmatically saying it can’t, just that I would like someone to show me one. The fact that the English word “for” sometimes carries a causal sense is entirely irrelevant.

Second, I find the #3 NET suggestion implausible, though I’m willing to give it more consideration and might contact some higher-level Greek gurus than myself to talk through some of the implications. The interpretation seems to rest on the shift in person between the two imperatives, but I don’t see why that should matter. You would have to make καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστου into a parenthetical statement. Even doing that, the word order is still odd. I would like to see another case where the structure is verb-kai-verb-prep phrase, where someone is asserting that the prep phrase connects only to the first verb.

Continuing along that line, there is a difference between grammatically possible and realistically plausible. For example, Yoda from Star Wars speaks in grammatically correct forms - Strong is Vader. Mind what you have learned. Save you it can - but no English speaker would ever (except to be funny or something) say a sentence that way. So, we have to ask not just if an interpretation can salvage some grammatical possibility, but whether it amounts to more than Yoda-speak. I have a strong feeling that #3 makes Yoda-speak of the passage. I notice as well that Randy Leedy’s NT diagram connects the prep phrase with βαπτισθήτω, although he has a note saying that it could apply to both imperatives (which I prefer). He does not suggest that the phrase could be construed with μετανοήσατε only.