“In the name of Jesus Christ”
Let’s begin by fixing the translation. When we modern Americans read “Christ,” we miss the point. Peter really said, “in the name of Jesus the Messiah” or even “in the name of King Jesus.”
In calling Jesus “the Christ,” Peter declared Jesus to be the true king of the Jews. Indeed, to submit to Jesus was very nearly an act of rebellion against Herod and Rome, because the Messiah was well understood to be a king. Herod considered himself “king of the Jews,” by appointment of Augustus Caesar. And the Jews couldn’t have but one king!
“In the name of” is literally “upon the name of,” a phrase appearing frequently in the Bible. For example, we encounter the phrase in —
(Gen 12:8 ESV) From there he moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD.
(Deu 10:8 ESV) At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD to stand before the LORD to minister to him and to bless in his name, to this day.
(Deu 18:5 ESV) For the LORD your God has chosen him out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for all time.
(Deu 18:20 ESV) But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’
(Deu 21:5 ESV) Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come forward, for the LORD your God has chosen them to minister to him and to bless in the name of the LORD, and by their word every dispute and every assault shall be settled.
(Jer 29:9 ESV) for it is a lie that they are prophesying to you in my name; I did not send them, declares the LORD.
(Dan 9:6 ESV) We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.
(Luk 21:8 ESV) And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.
(Luk 24:47 ESV) and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
(Acts 4:17 ESV) “But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.”
In Genesis 12:8, the phrase means something like “to pray to God” or “to worship God.” But in all the other examples, including the ones in Luke and Acts, the sense of the phrase is “on behalf of” or, as lawyers would say it, “as agent for.”
To be baptized “in the name of” Jesus would mean that the person doing the baptizing does so as an agent for Jesus himself. It is, in effect, that hands of Jesus who baptize through the person of the administrator of the baptism.
Questions:
- Does this mean that if baptize someone without faith he’ll be saved anyway?
- Does this mean that if we refuse to baptize a penitent believer, he’ll not be saved? In fact, one reason the Restoration Movement began is the practice of some churches of refusing to administer baptism to penitent believers who had no story of a conversion experience — a vision, a sign of being among the elect. Were those who were denied baptism damned? Will God save a penitent believer who comes to him for baptism and who is denied baptism by the church?
“For the forgiveness of your sins.”
It’s always struck me as odd that the King James Version says “remission” rather than “forgiveness.” There’s a reason. The Greek word, aphesin, means “release,” used metaphorically of forgiveness. But the color of the phrase is not just that we are forgiven from our sins: we are freed from our sins.
“For”
Inevitably, we must wrestle a bit with the preposition eis, meaning most literally “into.” Now, any student of a foreign language knows that prepositions are devilishly hard to translate. For example, “into” in English can be used in countless ways, such as —
“I’m going into the house.”
“I’ll look into that.”
“He’s really gotten deep into his studies.”
“I’m really into her.”
Hence, prepositions can be literal, as in “into the house,” or figurative, as in “into his studies,” or even so figurative that the image is nearly lost, as in “into her.”
In the Greek, eis has an even broader range of meanings. As a result, the old Zwinglian argument that baptism is a mere symbol of salvation that occurred immediately upon faith insists that eis means “for” in the sense of “because of,” so that forgiveness comes because of repentance and faith that have already occurred.
The Zwinglian would argue that baptism in Acts 2:38 is post-faith and so post-forgiveness. But the argument suffers from the fact that the baptism is “in the name of” Jesus — not the convert and not the church. Jesus himself is baptizing.
Finally, the argument suffers because the promise of the Holy Spirit is clearly stated to be as a consequence of repentance, baptism, and forgiveness. You “will receive” is in future tense, whereas the previous verbs “repent” and “be baptized” are aorist, imperative tense. In this construction, the aorist says nothing of time, but the imperative does. That is, the grammar is “Do X and Y will happen.” Clearly, Y follows X.
Therefore, it’s not really possible to credibly argue that forgiveness and receipt of the Spirit all precede baptism in Acts 2:38, regardless of what you do with the “for.” Indeed, this is why the arguments tend to be built on the meaning of eis — you can’t make the argument from the sentence as a whole.
Singular and plural verbs
While we’re dissecting the grammar, much has been made of Peter’s shift from plural to singular and back again, but it’s an overblown argument.
(Acts 2:38 ESV) 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent(plural) [and be baptized(singular) every one(singular) of you(plural) in the name of Jesus Christ] for the forgiveness of your(plural) sins, and you(plural) will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Obviously, “be baptized” is singular because it refers to “every one of you,” a singular phrase used in a collective sense. You might argue that the bracketed material is a parenthetical, so that “for the forgiveness of your sins” modifies “repent” but not “be baptized.” And yet “you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” is still in the future tense, immediately following “repent” and “be baptized,” both of which are imperative.
If so, the construction would be “Do X (and Y) and Z will happen.” And yet “in the name of Jesus Christ” is still attached to “be baptized.” So I’m not convinced. How can be baptism be “on behalf of Jesus” and not be tied to salvation (in the normal case)?
Eis
Now, to eis. Eis does not mean “because of.” We start with Lidell’s Intermediate Greek Lexicon —
Radical sense, into, and then to:
I. of Place, the commonest usage, εἰς ἅλα into or to the sea, Hom., etc.:—properly opposed to ἐκ, ἐς σφυρὸν ἐκ πτέρνης from head to foot, Il.; εἰς ἔτος ἐξ ἔτεος from year to year, Theocr.:—then, with all Verbs implying motion or direction, ἰδεῖν εἰς οὐρανόν Il.; εἰς ὦπα ἰδέσθαι to look in the face, Ib.:—in Hom. and Hdt. also c. acc. pers., where the Att. use ὡς, πρός, παρά.
2. with Verbs which express rest in a place, when a previous motion into or to it is implied, ἐς μέγαρον κατέθηκε, i.e. he brought it into the house, and put it there, Od.; παρεῖναι ἐς τόπον to go to a place and be there, Hdt.
Notice, that “baptize” means “immerse,” which implies motion from out of the water into the water. The most nature preposition to follow “immerse” is “into.”
Indeed, the dictionaries never give “because of,” but they do give “for,” but only respect to time (e.g., “for” three hours).
Thayer’s says,
a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among. It is used: …
1. of a place entered, or of entrance into a place, into; and a. it stands before nouns designating an open place, a hollow thing, or one in which an object can be hidden …
B. Used Metaphorically,
I. εἰς retains the force of entering into anything, …
II. εἰς after words indicating motion or direction or end;
1. it denotes motion to something, after verbs of going, coming, leading, calling, etc.,
…
3. it denotes the end; and a. the end to which a thing reaches or extends …
In short, eis means into. And we could translate “be immersed into the forgiveness of your sins,” which is quite a powerful translation — and gives us a better sense of what the water represents. Yes, it represents the Spirit — living water — but also forgiveness, because that’s one thing the Spirit accomplishes for us in our conversion.
Now, there is one other case where “for” can be a correct translation. Consider —
(John 9:39 ESV) Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.”
But here, “for” doesn’t mean “because” but “to result in” — that is, eis here refers to the intended result. Thus, Thayer’s gives as an alternative meaning —
3. it denotes the end; and a. the end to which a thing reaches or extends … b. the end which a thing is adapted to attain
Thus, “for the forgiveness of sins” means “to attain the forgiveness of sins.”
This is not to argue that the Zwinglian/Calvinist/Baptist understanding of baptism is insufficient to save — far from it! — but that it’s just really bad exegesis of Acts 2:38. In this verse, salvation occurs at water baptism.
There are, of course, many other passages that associate water baptism with salvation. And there are examples in Acts where the two appear separated. But in Acts 2:38 they are tied together. Indeed, the most natural reading is that we’re baptized into forgiveness.
Questions:
- Does the fact that baptism is into forgiveness mean that forgiveness can only be obtained by a proper baptism?
- Does the idea that baptism is “into” forgiveness give a fresh meaning for baptism? In fact, if you think about it, how could baptism mean anything else? It could (and does) mean more, but surely the picture is of having sins washed away.
- John’s baptism was also “for the forgiveness of sins” (grammatically indistinguishable from Acts 2:38).
(Mar 1:4 ESV) John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
(Luk 3:3 ESV) And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
We often distinguish John’s baptism are being for “repentance” — which is true — versus Christian baptism as being for forgiveness. Well, that’s obviously not right! What is the difference? How is Christian baptism different from John’s?
Jay,
Maybe I’ve missed something but it seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways. Sometimes you teach salvation by faith (as does the overwhelming majority of texts dealing with salvation), you even lists dozens of verses that clearly teach the same. And then you seem to me to change course and teach the opposite, that salvation is not by faith, but by faith and baptism. I don’t think we have the luxury of having it both ways.
In Acts 2:38 “repent” is the key word. Repentance does not happen apart from faith and those who have faith in Jesus are justified. In my view building a doctrine of salvation with one verse as it’s foundation is not wise and that is what churches of Christ have done. If faith and baptism is what saves then everyone who holds that view has every right, in fact a mandate, to declare everyone who disagrees as condemned and to withhold fellowship from them. If God only saves through baptism than I couldn’t fault some of your commentors here for discrediting Paul, the 4th chapter of Romans and much of his other writings just isn’t true.
Royce, Jesus seemed to judge it necessary. I follow Jesus, and him only. but we all have the freedom to follow whoever we wish.
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
NLT
But Jesus said, “It should be done, for we must carry out all that God requires.*” So John agreed to baptize him.
NIV
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
Laymond,
Jesus was not being baptized to be saved though was he?
Royce, the baptism of Jesus has baffeled many , and continues to do so today.
I don’t recall ever saying that we are saved by baptism, I have said many times, it is the first step, I believe it is a necessary step to prepare us for God’s work. Just as I believe it was a necessary step to prepare Jesus for the work he was given. If we notice it was only after the cleansing baptism that Jesus was given the power, and knowledge to cary out his father’s work. I believe it was Jesus who said
Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
“Jesus was not being baptized to be saved though was he?”
No, hw wasn’t. But that doesn’t mean that we aren’t. Neither did Jesus forgive others in order to be forgiven himself, but we do.
Royce, in teaching the truth about baptism being FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins, Jay hasn’t made salvation by anything other than faith. Its not an “either/or” proposition. That being saved BY FAITH requires one to be immersed does not make it not of faith.
The same could be said regarding repentance. Its not faith OR repentance (or faith OR confessing with ones mouth), rather….that is what biblical faith entails.
Royce, rather than breaking down Acts 2:38 in a connected and logical way yourself, you regularly argue “you can’t build a doctrine of salvation around one verse” but it seems clear that in arguing such, you really are seeking to dismiss the verse.
If you believe Jay has missed something above with his interpretation of the passage, please explain the verse in a mored accurate way. Id love to consider it….
Good article Jay.
Amen to that whole article. The church, acting in the name of Jesus Christ, declares sins forgiven of those who believe in him by baptizing them. Christ is the principal, we are the agents. He binds what we bind and leaves unbound what we leave unbound. However; he is the final judge and arbitrator of who has sincere faith and who doesn’t.
I cannot help but wonder if our place in Christ is dependent upon a grasp of such thorough linguistic analysis of a foreign language, “who then can be saved?” Jay’s approach here is to unbundle the language of the Greek copies in a way consistent with how one disassembles the language of a law — no surprise here! Such diagramming of the sentence is commonly done in order to put forth a legal argument based on a well-reasoned approach to precise words and syntax. I am not disagreeing with the specific linguistic observations Jay has made, simply wondering if we have tacitly treated Peter’s words as black-letter law in our application of the analytical tools appropriate for that circumstance.
The second thing which comes to my mind is how we are reading the underlying context of Peter’s sermon. Is he addressing his contemporaries, calling for their repentance for their killing of the Messiah and offering a course of action in receiving the Messiah? Or is he intentionally laying the foundation for the entire soteriology of Christianity? Is this sermon persuasive or legislative in nature? Is this baptism Peter calls for a familiar ritual washing not unlike what John performed? Or is Peter introducing something of a completely different order, the actual entry point to eternal life?
It strikes me that Peter’s language here is different from Jesus’ language, when Jesus talks about our “crossing over from death to life”. First, Peter never even mentions eternal life. That’s a rather large concept to merely assume, IMO, especially since the idea itself was not even universally held among the Jews. Two, at a simple reading, Peter’s words in Acts 2:38 appear to be a direct answer to a direct question about a specific event meaningful only to a specific people at that point in time. The extrapolation of this one-sentence answer into an entire soteriology seems to stretch the context more than a little.
Great article. Thank you for the detailed analysis. It really helps as one studies out all the other conversion accounts in Acts.
While I feel with you on this, Charles, there is more at stake. Since the original message was given in a foreign language, we are dependent on translation. As we both know there are good translations and sloppy ones. A sloppy translation of a salvation-message might produce results close to heresy, might confuse and lead astray sincere seekers and believers.
If Koine Greek were our language, we could keep it short and simple – since Koine was the language of the common people. But now we have to translate it into our own tongues. Greek had ways to be very specific about tenses and prepositions, ways to express thoughts more precisely than in German or English. Furthermore each word offers various options for translation, and depending on how educated, skillful or biased the translator is he will choose a more or less fitting translation. So in the end there should always be some in the church who at least have some working knowledge of Greek – and we should appreciate them even though it makes our faith a little more complicated. But that#s just a superficial impression, in the end it deepens our faith.
But, Charles, Peter himself does the extrapolation! A few words late he said that this would apply to all generations regardless of where they live:
The promise was and is tied to baptism, that’s why baptism is so important in Acts (and also the epistles). It was important enough for Christ to have His disciples baptized during His earthly ministry (as is evident from John 3 and 4). While John and Charles Wesley were some fine men of God, they had their lack of insight into the importance of baptism – on other aspects of the faith we should be very willing to learn from them. Since you (if I got it right) you joined a Methodist church, you joined a church with a poor undetstanding and practice of baptism, so it is natural that you will defend it by questioning the way we “churchers of Christers” understand such key passages.
I think, Jay’s Post was excellent BTW
Alexander
Earlier this week Al Maxey published an analysis of this verse, particularly of its use of εἰς – and reached a very different conclusion. Personally, I thought his argument was weak and that Jay has (without having seen Al’s Reflection?) completely answered his arguments.
Royce seems to overlook Jay’s attention to “imperfect baptism” or even to those coming to be baptized but who are deemed by others to be unworthy of receiving baptism.
Hey great article! I wanted to say that I don’t hear in the message that is recorded In Acts as one given to a specific people at that particular time. During this message it is observed by the crowd that the message was being spoken to over 12 differing languages . Why would they be addressing people that speak other languages if it is Peters intention to only have the message of this great event to be heard by a specific group? Both Jews and converts to Judaism were hearing the message Cretians and Arabs we’re amazed and perplexed. Acts 2:39 say’s that the promise is You and your children, and all who are far off, for all whom the Lord will call. As to issue as to whether Peter is talking about “crossing over from death to life” he clearly is doing just that! You have to read the whole message that is proclaimed by Peter and the eleven. Please read from 24 – 56 clearly many books explain the symbolism within the very act of baptism! Note that it states he Is pleading with them to save themselves from this Corrupt generation. What has occur before reconciliation with God happen? We were separated from Gog because of sin there to be reconciled one would need to have a means to have sin removed Peter and the eleven are presenting us with the very means to have this accomplished. We were buried with haptly rough baptism into Death in order that! Just as Jesus was raised From the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may hav.e new life. What is our biggest sin? Our biggest sin is that we don’t believe that Jesus was who He said he was “God in the flesh” to this we all were found guilty. Christ was not killed! He gave up his spirit and trusted in the Father.
Sorry for the errors I am not use to tablet typing. If the gist is not understood then I can rewrite.
Robert
Alexander, you indicate that “the promise” Peter speaks of is “tied to” baptism. (I suppose you really mean “repentance and baptism”, but I digress.) First, I don’t quite understand the exact nature of the “tie” which is being identified here. You appear to be proffering it as a simple quid pro quo: “Repent and get baptized if you want to get what I am promising you!”
But what exactly IS “the promise” here? The remission of sins? That’s all? That seems like less than the whole picture to me. I would have supposed (here I am, supposing again) that the promise the Jews were seeking was the Messiah himself. After all, Jesus the promised Messiah was the centerpiece of Peter’s message. I am not sure how or when baptism took center stage, with the long-awaited revelation of Messiah just serving as prelude to something more important…
As to the extension to the soteriology, I don’t think I am splitting hairs, but Peter says that the promise is to all. Why does he not say that his COMMAND is to all, if that is what he really means to say? This curious turn of phrase is not dispositive one way or the other, but it gives me pause. I think we might easily read these words through our own filters, making what may be into what obviously is.
Also, I am still puzzling over the difference between Jesus’ statements about our entering into eternal life and the absence of this in Peter’s message, if Peter indeed was implying this.
Oh, and I’m not Methodist. Never was. I did get tossed out of the CoC in part for leading worship from behind a guitar at a Holy Week service in a local Methodist church as a favor to their pastor. But in all fairness, it’s not like I couldn’t see THAT one coming…
I think a lot of Al Maxie, as I do Jay. Maxie is only one of a growing number of many who do not see baptism as a sacrament, and he and they are right. On this most, churches of Christ have more in common with Roman Catholics and Orthodox churches than any other groups.
For longer than most all of you have been alive I have told every person who has expressed to me their faith in Christ that they should be baptized. I have baptized many of them myself. Why would I do that? Because Jesus commanded that we teach disciples and baptize them. He never hinted that we should baptize lost people.
On receiving the Holy Spirit… It seems to me that the man who spoke the words of Acts 2:38 ought to be heard later in Acts when he defended baptizing Gentile believers. In Acts 10 Peter and some other believing Jews show up at the house of Cornelius, Peter begins to preach Christ and, well here is what happened.
“44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.”
Here it is as plain as day. These Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit as they listened to Peter talk about Christ.
Verse 47 is very significant. “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit…JUST AS WE HAVE”.
“Just as we have”? How was that Peter? Well, Peter answers that question when he is called on the carpet by the leaders of the church. We can read Peters statement to them in Acts 11. Peter relays his vision of the sheet let down and that the Holy Spirit told him to go to with the men to preach to the Gentiles and he concludes with these words.
“15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
“The Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us…” How was that Peter, was it when you were immersed? Nope. Peter said, “17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ….” “WHEN WE BELIEVED IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST”!
You see, Peter talked more than what is recorded in Acts 2. I invite anyone to whip out the Greek lexicon and consult your favorite commentary and see if you can get Peter to say anything other than what is recorded. He, and the other disciples, and the house of Cornelius, and everyone else who is saved received the gift of the Holy Spirit when they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ.
You claim Peter for your authority to preach baptism as a sacrament. I claim Peter for my authority to preach Christ and baptize those who believe and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Like Peter, how can I do otherwise.
The response of the churchmen after hearing Peter’s defense should be a model for all of us in my view.
“18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
Maybe we should glorify God that He has “granted repentance that leads to life”. Maybe we should be glad Pentecostals, and Baptists, and Calvinists, etc. have been granted repentance, even if God didn’t do it like we wanted him to.
In Acts 15 after the legalistic leaders started to grumble about circumcision Peter once more spoke to the leadership.
“6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
Peter said it was God’s plan that he should preach the gospel to the Gentiles and believe. God put his stamp of approval on that plan by giving the Holy Spirit “Just as he did to us”. “He made NO DISTINCTION….having cleansed their hearts by faith”.
So, I teach what Peter did and what Paul did. You want to restore New Testament Christianity? Start preaching Christ, call people to repentance and faith and baptize those who believe the message. Stop preaching church of Christ dogma and preach Christ. He is enough.
Royce,
Indeed, I think the scriptures teach both salvation of all with faith and salvation received at the moment of baptism. There’s no inconsistency in the normative case — baptism shortly following faith — but modern Christianity often radically separates the two. In that case, God keeps his promises — as he always does. And he’s promised to save all with faith.
Charles,
1. I begin basing my analysis on much more than the meaning of eis. In fact, I make the point:
2. I conclude,
Yes, yes, yes, any doctrine must be built on the totality of the evidence. But you don’t do that by reading your conclusions into the verses. You first read the verses for what they say — and this is how I read Acts 2:38 — and I don’t really care what the answer is, just that I get it right.
I ultimately conclude as to baptism that God will keep his promises, and he promised to save all with faith. He didn’t promise to save all with faith at the moment of faith, and God’s forgiveness happens in heaven, which is entirely outside earth-time, making the question of when God forgives of limited interest. More important is whom God forgives.
Jerry,
My post was written and posted (for delayed publication) well before Al’s post.
Charles and Alexander,
I think the “promise” is a reference to the “promise of the Holy Spirit” mentioned in Acts 2:33. I have a post coming in this series on that text. Read the text outloud and see if that doesn’t make sense.
I thought you had probably written your article before seeing Al’s exposition of this text. It is interesting, though, that each of you addressed the same subject the same week – and reached different conclusions about it. Really makes you think that all of us need to be less dogmatic and more loving, does it not?
Jerry,
I doubt that Al is losing any sleep over my contrary reading. Or that it affects our relationship. That’s the beauty of grace: we can disagree about such things and still be brothers and friends.
Jay,
Thank you for including something about the Greek grammar plural/singular issue
That is one the shortest, yet fairly informed treatments about the grammar issue that I have seen on a blog. In their first semester of Greek 101, students are not only warned to be careful of and true to the text regarding the “collective singular [which is plural],” but also the force of “coordinating conjunctions.” Price and I briefly discussed Al’s treatment in another section of the forum, so I will not rehash it.
The Holy Spirt is part of a greater promise, Jay: The New Covenant/the Kingdom of God. I would not isolate part of the covenant to make it the promise, but rather view it as a “very big thing” that consists of several aspects that are inseperably interwoven. We can take out baptism or faith or forgiveness orthe Holy spirit and study them separately, but then we must put them back into their proper relationship to the big picture, the promise.
So Acts 2:38-39 are one statement, that adresses the question: “How shall we deal with the new situation that Christ has been seated at the Right Hand of God?” I think this is how far the question of the listeners reaches! It’s not just: “Oops, we killed our messiah! Sorry – what shall we do?” But the fulfillment of Psalm 110 creates a whole new situation for the people of God (and all nations, as the OT prophecies indicate). Therefore I like to think and study on what the Holy Spirit does mean to me personally, but actually it is not about me alone, but about the purpose God has for all nations in the Kingdom of God. That’s the promise.
Alexander
Alexander,
Luke used the word “promise” two times in Acts before 2:39.
Each of these, in the immediate context of Acts 2:39, references the promise of the Holy Spirit, though we should not rule the broader promise of Messiah’s reign out of our understanding of “the promise is for you and your children.” In a later context, however, the word “promise” definitely includes the broader understanding of “promise.”
As Paul was before Agrippa, he definitely had Messiah’s reign in view as “the promise made by God to our fathers.”
Your drawing attention to this broader aspect of the promise is good – but in the context of Acts 2, the promise of the Holy Spirit is in the forefront.
Jay noted: “Yes, yes, yes, any doctrine must be built on the totality of the evidence. But you don’t do that by reading your conclusions into the verses. You first read the verses for what they say — and this is how I read Acts 2:38 — and I don’t really care what the answer is, just that I get it right.”
>>>
Forgive me for wandering from the verse at hand to talk more generally here. I would suggest that our traditional exploration of the “totality of the evidence” has been inconsistent at best. It is also often done very simplistically– for instance, with a concordance in one hand and an adding machine in the other. In fact, I would contend that it is this additive approach to “totality” which gave us “the plan of salvation” and moved the spotlight off the Man of salvation. (“Find all the actions connected with the phrase “be saved” in the NT and there is your list of requirements for salvation!”) One may read totality as additive, or inclusive, or from a more complex standpoint.
A good example of this I get from 1980’s charismatics who were trying to embrace supernatural healing. We want to see people healed, so what do we do? We tried “speaking” and “rebuking” and “naming” and “laying hands” and speaking the name of Jesus. Some old-timers got out the handkerchiefs. Some of us probably got into spitting and mud treatment and sending people to the doctor to get an x-ray for proof. We chastised spirits not knowing whether they were really there or not. All these efforts were parallels to, or direct copies of, healings of which we read in the scriptures. We were desperately trying to follow the scriptures. Unfortunately, it was NOT a smashing success. Should we have done all these things at once? Or were we free to use any of the recorded techniques? Or do the very variations recorded reveal that an underlying spiritual reality is at the heart of healing and that the methodology is altogether tangential?
So, my concern is not so much whether we read things into the verses, but WHAT are we reading in? And what conclusions are we drawing from it afterwards? In the case of this passage, if we begin by reading in an assumption of man/God quid pro quo, that creates one conclusion. If we are reading in Jesus’ references to the results of faith in John, it may well create another conclusion. I have no real problem with the simple translation of eis as “for”. What comes NEXT is to me what is important. What conclusions do we draw from Peter’s statement here as regards a 21st Century American being reconciled to God? Here, we tend to get into inductive reasoning and general assumption. The general assumptions rest on “what applies to whom”, a question I have posed elsewhere with complex, loosely-reasoned and inconclusive results.
As to induction, it is a reasonable starting point for surfacing possibilities, but it’s not a very effective method for nailing down conclusions. One may induce, as Alexander has said, that baptism is connected to forgiveness. Such a connection seems clear to me as well. But to further identify the true nature of that connection is probably beyond the capacities of this logical tool. It does not tell us whether the connection between baptism and remission of sins reflects a local statement (like “go show yourself to the priest” or “go soak your head in the Jordan”) or whether it was a fundamental and universal statement of doctrine. Or something in-between.
I may seem to be generating more questions than answers with my approach. I am not uncomfortable with this. If there ARE significant questions we are neglecting, we are remiss if we simply gloss over them because we don’t know the answers. What may be revealed is shortcomings in our basic approaches. But this is not always an easy thing. Sometimes I think we behave like juries who just get tired of batting the inconclusive evidence around and failing true consensus, go with general prevailing sentiment out of sheer exhaustion and the concomitant indifference. Not a good way to get justice, but I have been on those juries.
In fact, I am of the opinion that the very structure of the NT scripture reflects our absolute need for the ongoing revelation of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. God is not impatient with us to “get it right”, at least not as impatient as we think He is. Especially when we are talking about accuracy in mere linguistics or history. Salvation and forgiveness and reconciliation and eternal life are things of the spirit, reflected in the natural because of the limitations of our tripartite makeup. We have a really powerful Source, if we can learn to hear from Him.
Charles wrote:
Emphasis added [JS]
Has Jay in anyway spoken of a quid pro quo? If so, I have missed it.
You are right that different assumptions will yield different conclusions – and for us to recognize and admit our assumptions is difficult – verrrry difficult!
Any conclusion that ultimately places salvation somewhere other than “by grace through faith” is flawed. Is it fatally flawed? I certainly hope not, for some of my brethren’s sake. When we get to the point, however, that the work or the act of obedience itself is the means of salvation, as Luther pointed out strongly in his commentary on Galatians, then such obedience becomes faith in ourselves – and is idolatry. Thus our “obedience” itself becomes sinful. It is a long way from that position, though to rejecting obedience as a matter of “faith working through love.” Indeed, James, after stating that love is the fulfilling of the law, also said, “I will show you my faith by my works.”
It seems to me that some stress “the obedience of faith” while others focus on “the obedience of faith. Is there some way we can hold on to faith without trusting our obedience while also obeying without downplaying faith?
I believe that is exactly what Jay is trying to do – but as soon as he does some want to accuse him of a works-based salvation. On the other hand, some others get up in arms when he talks about faith. Come on, brethren! Let’s consider that we can obey without considering that our obedience is sufficient to our salvation. But we can never be saved apart from faith that trusts God completely and loyally. Nor can we be saved by a faith that is dead.
When Paul preached grace, his opponents accused him of saying let us do evil that good may come or of encouraging sin that grace may abound. Some here sound like those opponents. But you cannot read Romans 12 and accuse Paul of these things. Yet, he begins that chapter by appealing to us on the basis of the mercy of God!
Was Paul interested in obedience to God? Yes he was – but only in obedience that springs from trust in the God who promises to reward faith.
Jerry, I rather thought Jay came down more toward the other side of the argument, considering his references elsewhere to John’s repeated reporting on salvation by faith. I wasn’t trying to pin him to an approach. I was just pointing out two major approaches. They’re not the only ones, and they are not exclusive to the CoC.
As for me, I can easily admit my assumptions: just Google the phrase “Truths Other People Just Can’t Admit Yet”. ;^)
But seriously, the main reason I think we can’t admit our assumptions is that we have been unable to rationally separate them from the scriptures to which we have attached them. I do not assign malicious motives to people in this state, because undoubtedly I am in the same condition. This is one of the most valuable things about being in the Body of believers; that is, that other people can see the eye-beam which I cannot and can point it out to me. If my relationships are made of stronger stuff than mere agreement, then I can have my own thinking brought under examination in ways that would never have happened had I been alone or surrounded by people who think just like me.
When I encourage other people to allow their thinking to be challenged, it is not because of some surpassing wisdom on my part, but mainly because I have benefited personally so much from just that challenging process. I know we can learn and change, because I have. And if I can do it…
A very good observation!
We do are small part God implants his indwelling spirit and he accomplishes moving mountains on our behalf all this with faith as small as a mustard seed. We can’t God can and does continue to fathom the unfathomable. We ask for the gifts freely offered so we can see the unseen, obey and trust in the Love of the Father!! 🙂
Robert Thanks all for the enlightenment!!
I think if we can acknowledge this connecion, our first answer should be accepting it by faith and not rationalizing it. Our culture/mindset has a very strong Gnostic bend. It seems strange to us that a spiritual reality is connected to an outward act or a material element. So we should first question our way of reasoning, our logical tools.
From this we can go on and search for further descriptions of this connection. Like that baptism is likened to a bath, a washing. Like washing off dirt, so in baptism our sins are washed of. So the connection is shown in a fitting analogy. Or we can think of the connection with the death and burial of Christ. Or of being clothed with Christ. Circmcision of the heart joins the various descriptions of baptism’s connection to our new birth, remission of sin and salvation. And that’s just a glimpse into the topic.
Once we can acceptept this connection by faith, we will cherish the deeper meanings expressed in these descriptions. And we will lay aside our futile attempts to harmonize scripture with our 21st century mindset. Rather we will submit our way of reasoning to the words of Christ.
Alexander
If I am following correctly then what your saying is the same or simular message that Paul is telling the church in Ephesus. In Ephesians 3: 14-21 I think. Here I will cut and paste: Note the heading at the beginning of the chapter “Paul the preacher to the Gentiles 14 For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being,17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge–that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. I think this prayer says it best.
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,7 who has blessed us in the heavenly realms8 with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us9 in him before the creation of the world10 to be holy and blameless11 in his sight. In love12 5 he predestined13 us to be adopted as his sons14 through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure15 and will– 6 to the praise of his glorious grace,16 which he has freely given us in the One he loves.17 7 In him we have redemption18 through his blood,19 the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches20 of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery21 of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed22 in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment23–to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.24 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined25 according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose26 of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.27 13 And you also were included in Christ28 when you heard the word of truth,29 the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal,30 the promised Holy Spirit,31 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance32 until the redemption33 of those who are God’s possession–to the praise of his glory.34 I think this answers the questions concerning the promise.
Acts 3:19 is parallel to Acts 2:38
Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted,THAT your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
refrigerium , ii, n. id., I. [select] a cooling; trop., a mitigation, consolation
Louo also has the effect of “cooling the passions”
Eis or En is never used in any ancient texts to mean “because of.”
Epi-strephô , pf.
c. Philos., cause to return to the source of Being, tinas eis ta enantia kai ta prôta
Acts 2:38 solves the problem in Greek and Latin by defining the singular use
And Peter said to them: repentance is addressed to EACH person in their own language.
Acts 2:38 andres adelphoi; Petros de pros autous Metanoēsate
Peter speaks to what an individual can do: crowds cannot repent
autos
I. self, myself, thyself, etc., acc. to the person of the Verb: freq. joined with egō, su, etc. (v. infr. 10),
1. one’s true self, the soul, not the body, Od.11.602; reversely, body, not soul, Il.1.4; oneself, as Opposed to others who are less prominent, as king to subject, 6.18; Zeus to other gods, 8.4;
2. of oneself, of one’s own accord, “alla tis au. itō” Il.17.254;
3. by oneself or itself, alone, autos per eōn although alone, Il.8.99;
Each self must repent and each self must be baptized: the word and or KAI connects repentance AND baptized and that’s what the translations say for those of us who don’t have a first century grammar.