Acts 2:38-“eis”
By Timothy Glover
Several years ago, I came across a quote from a teacher of Greek at the Houston Baptist College concerning Acts 2:38. Part of it is as follows: “At first reading, this passage seems to teach that baptism is essential to salvation. But because of a strong conviction that to hold the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is to contradict the main body of New Testament teachings, varied attempts have been made to circumvent what appears to be the plain and literal interpretation of the passage and to interpret it in harmony with the belief that baptism follows salvation. In one such attempt baptism is interpreted to mean ‘spiritual baptism.” While it is true that it was predicted of Jesus that, ‘he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire’ (Matthew 3:11b ASV), the contention here is that the baptism referred to in Acts 2:38 is water baptism and that the context makes it clear that in this passage whatever is said regarding baptism must be predicated of water baptism.”
“Another attempt to harmonize this passage with the view that baptism follows salvation uses the method which interprets the Greek word eis (into) retrospectively, making the passage read ‘be baptized because of the remission of sins.’ Although it is admitted that there are New Testament passages which require a retrospective interpretation of "eis", it is here maintained that good hermeneutics requires that any rejection of the basic and customary translation of the word eis be done only upon the most substantial grounds. Acts 2:38 neither requires the retrospective interpretation, nor does the retrospective interpretation fit the passage.”
A.T. Robertson, Dan and Mantey and Ray Summers contended for this view. Ralph Marcus responds to Mantey’s articles in The Journal of Biblical Literature in 1952, p. 44 where he explains that Mantey’s proof is taken from eis in non-biblical Greek and that “he misconstrued the non-biblical passages.” He continues, “He has also, I think, confused cause with purpose. 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, 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.”
Cain’s interpretation is not based on eis but he explains that repentance is commanded to one group and baptism to another group, and for different reasons. A Baptist commentator by the name of Horatio B. Hackett, D.D, writes, “In order to the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28; Luke 3:3) we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.”
Other examples could be cited but these suffice to show that Acts 2:38 is not so clear among Baptist scholars whose religion rejects baptism as necessary to salvation. They have had a difficult time explaining the meaning of Acts 2:38 and cannot agree among themselves on how to “circumvent what appears to be the plain and literal interpretation of the passage...” (Glen T. Cain). After Peter’s sermon, the Jewish audience cries, “Men, and brethren, what shall we do? Now, they were wanting to know what to do. Why would they want to know what to do? Recall that Peter has convinced them that Jesus was the Messiah, they killed him, God raised him from the dead, and he is now the coroneted Lord and Christ.
What does it have to do with them? They killed the Lord (ruler) and Christ. What follows is Peter’s answer that points to the kind of action required to correct their terrible condition. The condition was that they were in sin. Two things were specified: repentance and baptism. Peter is not talking to two different groups here nor does he give two different purposes. He gives one purpose to one group of people. When they repented and were baptized, they would have sins remitted. Hackett is correct to use Matthew 26.
Jesus shed his blood for the remission of sins. Both the shedding of blood and baptism are for the same purpose. These phrases are not causal, are they? Did Jesus shed his blood because of sins already forgiven? Of course not! The same is true of baptism. When we repent and are baptized, we are promised remission of sins. No wonder Peter says (1 Peter 3:21) that “baptism does also now save us!”
