"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).
Jude teaches us that we, "...should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints," (Jude 1:3). The apostle Paul states that he is, "...set for the defense of the gospel " (Phil.1:17), and Peter tells us that we are to, "...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear," (1 Pet.3:15).
Through the decades, there have been many cunning and artful attacks from the "faith-only" proponents against the simplicity and unduplicitous meaning of Peter's command to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Some of these assaults have been led by well-educated and eloquent deceivers, for it truly requires professional and highly educated help to misunderstand this statement, and to effectively deceive the masses! These professional deceivers can create a rather convincing presentation if you are a "faith-only" advocate, and/or if you are totally ignorant of the New Testament Greek grammar.
Men go to great lengths in their desperation to show that eis could be rendered "because of," which is not surprising, for it is absolutely essential in supporting their understanding of "faith-only." I suggest, and intend to demonstrate by the evidence which follows, that eis has never meant "because of" at any period of Greek history. First, we must recognize that eis is a preposition. According to Davis' Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament on page 44, we learn that "Prepositions are adverbs specialized to define more clearly the meaning of cases, many of which come to be used in composition with verbs. Prepositions are used to bring out more clearly the idea of case. They help the cases [of nouns]...It is the case which indicates the meaning of the preposition, and not the preposition which gives the meaning to the case."
Any preposition that is used with more than one case will have a variety of meanings depending upon the case which it is used with, however, the preposition eis is only used with one case of nouns. The significance of this is that the meaning of eis will be standardized. There are some basic shades within this standardized meaning, but it basically has but one functional idea; so, what is that function? John Williams, Professor of Greek at Harvard University published "The Beginner's Greek Book" in 1896. This is a Grammar of the Greek language in the 4th and 5th Centuries before Christ. He wrote this in Lesson 12 on page 21, paragraph 95 concerning prepositions. "One [preposition] is used with the accusative only; namely, eis, into to," (properly to a position in something, opposed to ek, out of)." This is quite remarkable indeed! Notice that he says that eis is only used with the accusative case and means "into, to" and is the opposite of ek which means "out of". Thus, the preposition eis shows motion or direction towards something.
Again in Liddell's Classical Greek Lexicon we read that eis means "direction towards, motion to, into." This is also a Lexicon of Greek used before the New Testament era. The preposition eis has had the same meaning from the earliest period of its history to this very day!
To this, all Greek scholars agree including the revered "faith-only" scholar A.T. Robertson. In his big Grammar on page 591 he wrote: "The accusative indeed normally suggests motion, and that did come to be the common usage of EIS plus the accusative....It does not of itself mean into, unto or to. That is the resultant idea of the accusative case with verbs of motion." Again on page 593: "The usual idiom with eis was undoubtedly with verbs of motion when the motion and the accusative case combined with eis to give the resultant meaning of into, unto, among, to, towards."
Observe what Mr. Robertson is saying here: he is saying that when a passage of scripture has, 1) a verb of motion, and, 2) the preposition eis, and, 3) a noun in the accusative case, that the meaning of eis is "into, unto, among, to, towards." Now remember that eis is only found with the accusative case and its usual construction is with verbs of motion. This could be its exclusive construction.
Yet another authority corroborating this construct is found in Kittel's 10 volume set of, "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." Vol. 2 page 429 we read: "The preposition denotes the direction of an action to a specific end." This is the consensus of scholars, both ancient and modern.
Several years ago the students of the training program in Portland, Oregon wrote to several Greek Scholars for their understanding of the meaning of the word eis and its meaning in Acts 2:38. Click here to read these letters which are unedited and are all that answered.
Mr. Warren Blake of the University of Michigan stated it as clearly as any when he wrote: "The preposition eis can never have the force of 'because of' at any period of the language." Any and all denominational 'authorities' are in direct opposition to the Greek Language Scholars in our Universities. Any religious group that must make a special definition of a word so as to support their doctrine is handling the Word of God deceitfully.
The same two questions were asked of Curtis Vaughan of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX., for the purpose of learning what authority he used for the translation "because of" for this preposition, and here is his response:
In your letter you raised two questions. First, "Can the Greek preposition EIS be translated 'because of'"? Second, "what, in your opinion, is its meaning in Acts 2:38"? As to the first question, the preposition EIS may on certain occasions be translated "because of." Dana and Mantey in, "A Manual Grammar of the greek New Testament," give as examples of passages where EIS may be translated "because of" Romans 4:20, Matthew 3:11, Romans 11:32, and Titus 3:14. As for your second question; that is, "What is the meaning of the preposition in Acts 2:38," I would say that it MAY be translated in this manner, in this passage, without doing violence either to the grammar or the context. I would commend to you the translation of this verse by C. B. Williams in his "The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People" (published by Moody Press). His translation is: "Peter said to them, 'You must repent--and as an expression of it, let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ--that you may have your sins forgiven'". This translation attempts to bring out the difference in construction in the Greek for the word "repent" and the expression "be baptized." There is a decided break in the thought between these two expressions which is not brought out by many of the English translations. In the Greek the word "repent" is a second person plural form; the word "be baptized" is a third person singular. This change in number and person makes for a decided break in thought. The first thing to do is repent, which involves a radical change of mind, heart, and life; then, after this is done, let each one be baptized because of the remission of sins which is effected by such an attitude of repentance. I would also refer you to the grammar of Dana and Mantey, mentioned above, particularly the discussion on page 104.
Notice in Mr. Vaughan's response, that he quotes from Dana and Mantey, which is a "Baptist" Greek Grammar, after which he recommended C.B. William's translation of the New Testament, which again, is a "Baptist" translation. He is in effect quoting himself and saying "I am my own authority." This is a perfect example of extreme scriptural bias and eisegesis.
Mr. Vaughan also stated in his response, "I might say about Acts 2:38 that Greek grammar ALONE will never solve the difficulty about interpretation of the preposition EIS." I will strongly suggest that if men didn't have a "faith-only" agenda to propagate, there would be no difficulty about the interpretation of the preposition eis!
Unfortunately, the more educated and articulate the lie, the easier the deception is to peddle! The word eis means "into, to, unto, towards," and the Greek Scholarship in many of our Universities agree that it can "never mean because of." The preposition shows motion or direction toward a specific end.
"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," (ASV).
Many preachers, including myself, in the church have taught and preached this verse as if there were a compound predicate in it. It is preached as though Peter had said that a person is to "repent and be baptized" then he will receive remission of sins, however, this is not the grammatical construction of this verse. The sentence actually has 3 independent clauses, each connected by the conjunction "and," notice:
1) "You (2nd person plural) repent." This clause in an imperative. The crowd had asked Peter "What shall we do?" (vs 37), and Peter answers them collectively, "You all repent..." This is a general statement referring to them as a group.
2) "Everyone one of you separately (3rd person singular) be baptized for the remission of your sins..." Baptism is a personal situation, i.e., it is not possible for one to be immersed representatively for all, but rather each person must go down into the water for himself. Notice that the prepositional phrase ("for the remission of your sins") modifies baptism and not repentance. Baptism is the single act that brings "remission of sins." Repentance will lead one to baptism, but it is in baptism that one is brought into the state of forgiveness. Here again Peter uses the imperative mood, commanding each individual to be baptized for the remission of his sins.
3) "You (2nd person plural) shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Peter changes back to the collective subject and uses the simple future tense. The Holy Spirit is a promise and hence he does not make this clause a command.
When we can comprehend what Peter actually said, his statement is irrefutable proof that baptism is the place where one enters into the state of forgiveness rather than faith or repentance, though both are necessary prerequisites. The grammar of Peter's statement does not associate "repentance" with remission of sins, only baptism in this verse. It is no surprise then, that he would later write that "...baptism doeth also now save us..." (1 Pet.3:21).
Recall that we have learned from A.T. Robertson that when a verb of motion and a noun in the accusative case was connected with eis that this preposition should be translated "into, unto, among, to, towards," and this is the construction of Acts 2:38, however, Mr. Robertson also wrote in his "Word Studies" while commenting on Acts 2:38: "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission."
Sadly, Mr. Robertson is no longer being honest with the very principle of Greek grammar which he has affirmed in his own Grammar, and he is deciding the use of eis "according as how he believes." Instead of allowing the grammar to interpret the passage, he has set aside the grammar completely and interpreted it based on his own personal denominational bias. This is blatantly dishonest! Instead of letting a Holy-Spirit-inspired verse tell him what to believe, he tells the verse what it says. This is an overwhelmingly common practice among denominational preachers. We need to let every passage interpret itself and speak to our hearts. The truth can only set us free as we let the truth have its perfect work in our lives. When we force truth to conform to our preconceived notions, then it is no longer truth, and it is powerless to set us free from sin.
Thankfully, not all "faith-only" people have been this dishonest, but it is a shame that this man who is quoted as an authority by so many is not even honest in his own approach to the Scripture. One of his own number, Edgar Goodspeed, was more honest. When he translated Acts 2:38 he wrote: "You must repent and be baptized everyone of you in order to have your sins forgiven." When he was asked about his very anti-baptist translation, he honestly replied: "I am first a Greek scholar and then a theologian." How much better off religionists would be if all would be this honest with the Greek and the grammar of the Bible. It would put an end to the religious division caused by the cancerous "faith-only" doctrine.
"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance," (Mat 3:11). This verse is quoted by the "faith-only" proponents who claim it is an exact parallel to Acts 2:38 and thus unlocks the meaning of Peter's words. They are quick to assert that the idea of "in order to" as the meaning of eis would certainly fail if applied to this passage, saying, would it make sense to say John baptized in order to repentance? While it is true the English they have chosen to use does sound a bit awkward, does that authorize us to set aside all the rules of Greek grammar because of an awkward English translation? It would seem to be a more logical approach to work on the English so as to make it flow easier while still upholding the rules of Greek grammar. Notice in this passage that we have 1) a verb of motion - "I baptize"; 2) the preposition eis - "into," and, 3) the noun in the accusative case - "repentance." Mr. Hendrickson translates this passage as: "I baptize you with a view to conversion." Beck translates this as: "I baptize you for a change of heart." Others translate it, "unto changing," or, "unto turning," or, "for conversion." John baptized people with a view to having them turn from their sins and thus prepare themselves to believe and accept Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah, (Cf. Acts 19:4). John did not baptize them "because they repented," but so that they would change their minds and actions towards the Christ who was soon to come.
"...for they repented at the preaching of Jonah," (Mat 12:41). This is another passage often cited as showing conclusive proof that eis cannot mean, "into," or, "unto," but rather, it must mean, "because of." Some denominationalists have said that it would be ridiculous to follow the idea that, "they repented in order to the preacher of Jonah." Again, as in the previous example, their choice of English does sound rather ridiculous, however, their statement further exemplifies a desperate attempt to forge some passage into a "faith-only" tool. The Greek grammar is not so malleable when one will actually follow the rules! Did the Ninevites repent at the "preacher" of Jonah? Or even as the NASV says, at the, "preaching of Jonah?" The word used for "preaching," is a noun in the Greek, not a verb, nor a participle. It is a noun in the accusative case used with the proposition eis. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words gives this meaning: "a proclamation by a herald, denotes a message, the substance of what is preached as distinct from the act of preaching." Matthew was not writing about the "preacher," Jonah, nor the "preaching," of Jonah, but rather the "preached message," of Jonah. The people of Nineveh turned toward the message that Jonah preached. Jesus used Nineveh as an illustration of what the Jews of his day were not doing. They had turned away from the message preached by Christ, while the people of Nineveh turned toward the message of Jonah. Even C.B. Williams (a faith-only translator) translates this passage as: "for they turned to the message preached by Jonah." This passage does not support the "because of," theory concocted by satan's ministers of righteousness (2 Cor.11:14), who are studiously trying to pawn off this false doctrine of "faith-only," on all who are unstudied in God's word.