Tag Archives: Baptism

Forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38

3 Replies

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.

Baptized in the name of Jesus

1 Reply

waterIn Acts 2:38, Peter tells the crowd they need to be baptized in the name of Jesus. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus said that baptism was to be “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Which is right?

I think they both are. I don’t think that either was intended as part of a litany to be pronounced while performing baptism. Jesus told his disciples to pray in his name, yet none of the recorded prayers in the New Testament contains the phrase “in Jesus’ name.” Christians are told to do everything in Jesus’ name (Colossians 3:17), to assemble in the name of Jesus (Matthew 18:20; 1 Corinthians 5:4), and to do good deeds in Jesus’ name (Mark 9:41; Matthew 18:5). None of that has to do with a phrase that is to be said out loud.

We can look to the Old Testament concept of “invoking the name of the Lord” to better understand this concept. This was more than saying a name; it was looking to the Lord as God. Solomon built a temple for “the Name of the LORD.” Isaiah could write about the Name of the Lord coming in punishment (Isaiah 30:27).

Being baptized in the name of Jesus is essentially being baptized into Christ. There is little difference in being baptized in the name of the godhead and “calling on the name of the Lord” in baptism (Acts 22:16). More than ritual, it’s relationship. It includes authority, but it’s more than that. It’s about staking your claim as a member of God’s people. It’s about declaring yourself to now be a temple of the Lord.

There’s nothing wrong with saying “I baptize you in the name….” It’s just helpful to remember that there is much more to that act than a mere pronouncement.

Acts 2 and baptism

10 Replies

waterAfter taking a few days to attend the Pepperdine Lectures, I’m ready to continue our discussion of baptism. We come to a watershed moment, the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Here we see the outpouring/baptism of the Holy Spirit and the first apostolic sermon to non-believers.

Peter drives home his main point in Acts 2:36

“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36)

The crowd reacts to this, recognizing the truth of Peter’s words. They cry out, “What can we do?” How do we fix this? We’ve killed the Messiah; what now?

Peter’s response:

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38–39)

So, to break it down, we have baptism

  • in the name of Jesus
  • for the forgiveness of sins
  • leading to the gift of the Holy Spirit

Peter also extends this promise to generations to come and people not physically present. He ends by returning to Joel 2, the passage he had quoted earlier:

“And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said, among the survivors whom the LORD calls.” (Joel 2:32)

We’ll dig a bit deeper in the next few days. Initial thoughts?

Baptism in the ending of Mark’s gospel

4 Replies

waterThe text of the last chapter of Mark is controversial. There is much evidence that suggests that the ending found in the earliest English translations is not the same ending that was in the original Greek manuscript. Just what the ending was and where the additional material came from is not clear.

I think it unlikely that verses 9 through 20 of Mark 16 appeared in the original. I do believe, however, that they are very ancient. I don’t have a problem as accepting them within the body of inspired writings, even if Mark didn’t write them. I would not, however, seek to build an entire doctrine solely on the evidence of these verses.

Here are the verses that speak about baptism:

“And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15–16)

These verses bear some resemblance to the verses we looked at from the end of Matthew. And Luke has a similar “sending out” passage in the last chapter of his gospel:

“This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:46–47)

What do we see in Mark? That belief and baptism are necessary. And a lack of belief condemns. It’s not stated that a lack of baptism will condemn. Much has been made of that, despite most people knowing that the absence of something is hardly grounds for a logical argument. (unless, of course, you’re wanting to disprove a doctrine or practice you don’t like; then it’s okay)

Can you believe and not be baptized and be saved? To make an argument either way based on these verses would not be wise. It’s best to stick to what is said: if you believe and are baptized you will be saved.

So this post invites all sorts of comments: textual criticism, biblical canon, importance of baptism, salvation through belief alone. Let’s hear your thoughts!

The Great Commission

2 Replies

water

“Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”” (Matthew 28:18–20)

That’s how Matthew’s gospel ends. We call it the Great Commission, the great sending out of the apostles with a message for the world.

Some thoughts:

  • The principle command is to make disciples. The two phrases that follow help us understand the meaning of “make disciples.” You do that by baptizing them and teaching them to obey.
  • Jesus wasn’t giving us a baptismal formula to be pronounced over the person being immersed. “In the name of” reflects whose authority lies behind the act. It’s not about something that you say.
  • This command is given directly to the Twelve (or the Eleven, if you want to be picky), but the teaching element of this command extends it to others. When the apostles taught others to obey, they would teach them to make disciples as well.

We mustn’t forget that the gospel writers weren’t just writing history. They were writing teaching books for the church. They chose their material in a Spirit-guided way, using the stories and teachings that would benefit the church. Matthew ended his book with these words to emphasize their importance, the centrality of the mission.

These were the marching orders for the church in the first century. And that hasn’t changed.