On the day of Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection, Peter told the crowd they needed to repent and be baptized. We noted three aspects to this baptism:
- in the name of Jesus
- for the forgiveness of sins
- leading to the gift of the Holy Spirit
When you study a language, you learn that prepositions are nasty creatures with a mind of their own. We generalize and try to relate them to a preposition in our own language, but there is never a direct correlation. For example, in English, you dream about someone and think about something. (if we use the “direct correlation” idea) In Spanish you dream with someone and think in something. Serious linguists can explain the choice of prepositions in each case; language learners just have to memorize what preposition goes with what verb in each situation.
Peter uses the preposition eis in Acts 2:38, be baptized eis the forgiveness of sins. Eis, in the direct correlation view, means into. Into the forgiveness of sins? Awkward phrasing, though it does give us a sense of the meaning.
Just to give you an idea of how complicated the possibilities can get, let me share how Strong’s Greek Dictionary of the New Testament defines eis:
a primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases: — (abundant-)ly, against, among, as, at, (back-) ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for (intent, purpose), fore, + forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-)on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, til, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to), …ward, (where-)fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively).
As usual, context will be our friend here. The crowd feels convicted and asks what they should do. Peter says “Repent and be baptized ___ the forgiveness of sins…” Whatever preposition we choose needs to result in the people being in a state of having their sins forgiven. For the forgiveness of sins. Into the forgiveness of sins. They felt sinful. They wanted to feel clean. Peter tells them how.
At the time of their baptism, does the person have to know that this forgiveness is part of it? Many have made a big deal of proper understanding of the purposes of baptism, leading to many repeat baptisms. I’m not convinced. Peter uses almost the same language in chapter 3:
“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that (eis) your sins may be wiped out,” (Acts 3:19)
I’ve never heard anyone make the argument that repentance is invalid if the person didn’t realize at the time that it was for the forgiveness of sins.
One of the results that comes of Christian baptism is the forgiveness of our sins.
Wright argues, I think effectively, that the phrase “forgiveness of sins” is a synecdoche for all the blessings of the arrival of God’s kingdom. From the perspective of Second Temple Jews, for whom the exile never truly ended because their sins were never forgiven — the clear sign of which was that YHWH had never returned to the Temple — announcing the forgiveness of sins would be synonymous with announcing the true end of the exile — the arrival of God’s Anointed — the coming of the great day of the Lord that Malachi and Joel (and others) had prophesied.
That’s why it makes perfect sense to me now, to say that we’re baptized into the forgiveness of sins — “forgiveness of sins” is synonymous with a whole new world!
Tim, your point is excellent regarding repentance also being for the forgiveness of sins. If it is not necessary for salvation for one to know that repentance is for the forgiveness of sins neither is it necessary to know that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins to be saved.
The best arguments for this point of view were made by David Lipscomb and James Harding and others associated with them. The Gospel Advocate Centennial Volume (published in the mid 1950’s) is a gem to own for any minister or church leader on this subject. Editor B.C. Goodpasture was a militant moderate in the 1950’s trying to contain noninstitutionalism and extreme conservative views such as that one must know that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins in order to be saved. He chose several classic articles from the first century of the GA refuting those who taught that Baptists and other immersed believers must be rebaptized. By the 1970’s Goodpasture had moved on to other issues on which he was perceived as a staunch conservative but he never changed his views regarding rebaptism. His brother-in-law, J.M. Powell, was published in the GA as late as the 1980’s opposing rebaptism. Since then the GA seems to have abandoned its historic position on rebaptism and now supports the opposite view that baptism is invalid for those who do not know that it is for the forgiveness of sins.
Tim, and others would it be the same, if we take communion/the lord’s supper and don’t know the reason why. ?