"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 Ghost." (Acts 2:38 KJV) Did Peter tell the people to be baptized in order to have their sins forgiven or did he tell them to be baptized because their sins were already forgiven? Religious people have disagreed about this for many years. The points of discussion are:

1. What the Bible says regarding "when an alien sinner is saved."
2. The grammar of Acts 2:38.
3. The meaning of the word "for."

When Is an Alien Sinner Saved? Universalism says that all men will be saved. So it really, makes no difference when an alien sinner is saved? If Universalism is true, it doesn't make any difference. Others say that an alien sinner is "justified by faith only" (Methodist Discipline, p 73, 1948 edition), "solely through faith in Christ" (Baptist Manual, Hiscox, p. 62), or at the point of faith (B. L. Sparks, Bonner/Sparks Debate). Still others believe the Bible teaches that the alien sinner is saved from his past sins when he is baptized (immersed) in water in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). Many passages (John 3:16; John 8:24, Mark 16:16; Acts 16:30,31) teach the necessity of faith. Truly, alien sinners are justified by faith (Romans 5:1). The question then comes: which believer is saved from past sins, and when is that believer saved from past sins?

The believer is eligible to become God's child (John 1:11,12), for Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9; Galatians 5:6). It is the obedient believer who will be saved. Hence, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16) Further, Ananias told Saul, "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16) Saul, believed on the road to Damascus, but his sins were not washed away until three days later (Acts 9:9).

The Grammar of Acts 2:38. In the Warren/Ballard Debate, Mr. L. S. Ballard introduced the idea that repent (second person plural) and be baptized (third person singular) "cannot have the same subject or nominative. Peter was saying to all those who repented unto life, every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, not in order to obtain the remission of sins" (p. 146). Consider the comments of some noted grammarians:

• Marvin K. Franzmann, Concordia Seminary. "As regards the expression in Acts 2:38, it is grammatically possible to connect eis aphesin with both verbs." (Warren/Ballard Debate p. 163).
• J. W. Wilmarth, an outstanding Baptist scholar. "This interpretation (that is, to try to separate the two verbs) 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. Indeed, we can hardly escape the latter alternative if we choose the former. For those who contend for the interpretation on account of remission wi1l hardly be willing to admit Peter said repent as well as be baptized on account of remission of sins. This is too great an inversion of natural sequence. Yet, to escape it, we must violently dissever repent and be baptized and deny that eis expresses the relation of repentance, as well as baptism, to forgiveness of sins. But the natural construction connects the latter with both preceding verbs. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other, as Hackett says." (Warren/Ballard Debate pp 163, 164)
• Henry J. Cadbury, member of the Revised Standard Version Committee. "The grammar of the sentence in Acts 2:38 is perfectly regular, and is better Greek than if the author had kept the second person plural baptize after using the singular each. I have no doubt that another author would have written Do ye repent, and be ye baptized, each of you. But this writer seems to have preferred the less loose construction. I think that there would be no essential difference in meaning. Whether he said Do ye repent, and be ye baptized each of you, or exactly as it stands, there would be no essential difference in meaning." (Warren/Ballard Debate, p.164)

The meaning of "For." According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, for has a number of meanings, two of which are:

• Because of.
• Purpose.

Note the following examples:

• He went to jail for (because of) murder.
• He went to the store for (in order to get) a loaf of bread.

However, the word eis, which is translated for (KN) or unto (ASV) in Acts 2:38, never looks backward, only forward, giving it the concept of "purpose."

Consider carefully the definition that recognized authorities have given eis:

1. Amdt and Gingrich. "f. to denote purpose in order to, to: ...for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven Matthew 26:28; cf. Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38."
2. Eis with verbs of motion. "But the usual idiom with eis was undoubtedly with verbs of motion when the motion and the accusative case combined with eis (in) to give the resultant meaning of into, unto, among, to, toward or on, upon, according to the context. This is so common as to call for little illustration." (Grammar, A. T. Robertson, p. 593)
3. Thayer. "...to obtain the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38..." (Lexicon, p. 94)

What about the scholars who indicate that eis may mean because of?

1. Aim or Purpose. "...this is the idea in Matthew 26:28, eis aphesin amartion. But it by no means follows that the same idea is expressed by eis aphesin in Mark 1:4 and Acts 2:38 (Cf. Matthew 10:41), though that may, in the abstract, be true. It remains a matter for the interpreter to decide." (Grammar, A. T. Robertson, p. 595)
2. Of Matthew 12:41, where the Ninevites "repented at the preaching of Jonas," Mr. Robertson says, "it is absurd to take eis as into or unto or even to." (Grammar, p. 593)
3. Again, Mr. Robertson says of eis, "that the preposition does not, of itself, mean into, even with verbs of motion. That is, indeed, one of the resultant meanings, among many others." (Grammar, p. 593)
4. Mr. J. R. Mantey's statement, quoted in the Dana and Mantey Grammar, where he said, "The sentence metanoesen eis to kerugmaion (repented at the preaching of Jonah) in Matthew 12:41, and Luke 11:32 is forceful evidence for a causal use of this preposition. What led to their repentance?" (Also, note that metanoesen, third-person singular, should be metanosan, third-person plural, GM)

Of course, it was Jonah's preaching." (P. 104) What is overlooked is the preceding paragraph, where Mr. Mantey said, "When one considers, in Acts 2:38, repentance as self-renunciation and baptism as a public expression of self-surrender and self-dedication to Christ, which significance it certainly had in the first century, the expression eis aphesin ton amartion umon (unto the remission of your sins, GM) may mean for the purpose of the remission of sins. But if one stresses baptism, without its early Christian import, as a ceremonial means of salvation, he does violence to Christianity as a whole, for one of its striking distinctions from Judaism and Paganism is that it is a religion of salvation by faith, while all others teach salvation by works."

Question: Did the Ninevites repent because of Jonah's preaching? Yes! Is that what Matthew 12:41 and Luke 11:32 teach? NO! Indeed, Jonah's trip to Nineveh and his preaching helped bring about the Ninevites' repentance, but Matthew 12:41 and Luke 11:32 do not say that. They say that the Ninevites repented eis (unto or into) the benefits of Jonah's preaching or in order to comply with Jonah's preaching. Their repentance looked FORWARD to something, NOT BACKWARD. What does "for" (eis) mean in Acts 2:38? It means unto or in order to, NOT because of.

One last thought along this line, and that is a reminder of what J. W. Wilmarth said as quoted above, "...those who contend for the interpretation on account of remission will hardly be willing to admit that Peter said repent, as well as be baptized on account of remission of sins. Whatever baptism is "for," repentance is "for." We simply cannot separate them. Therefore, "for" in Acts 2:38 means unto, or in order to.

---

I know this is heavy reading for the common man. Why is it necessary to go into so much detail about Greek and grammar to understand the three-letter word "for?" Is it not because man desires to find a way to escape the logical conclusion of a simple passage of scripture. Why do people work so hard to twist and pervert this passage? They are searching for an escape route around the essential requirement for the alien sinner to submit to baptism.

There's really no need to go into such detail to answer those who pervert the apostle Peter's teaching. What is the basis of man's forgiveness? "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." {Ephesians 1:7} Redemption is through Christ's blood. Where do we contact that blood? "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore, we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." {Romans 6:3,4} If the sinner needs the blood, he needs baptism. Therefore, the word "for" is defined in order to receive forgiveness. Understanding is not difficult when you examine the statement from a different angle. (KMG)