I had a conversation recently with someone who posed a question from a so-called “Greek guru,” regarding the word “for” in Acts 2:38. This supposed “guru” is of the belief that baptism is not a command given as a prerequisite to salvation, and that the verse in question supports his position. The verse in question reads as follows…

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)

The “guru” holds the idea that the word “for” in the phrase “for the remission of sins” means a person receives remission of sins so that he can then be baptized. In other words, salvation is the prerequisite to baptism, not the other way around.

My answer is this:

“AND”

Peter links the verb “repent” and the verbal phrase “be baptized” together with the word “and.” That linking means they follow the same “tense,” so if you do one before, you do both before. If you do one after, you do both after.

Does a person receive remission of sins so that he can afterward repent? No. Repentence comes before salvation.

Granted, a Christian will later repent whenever he sins again, but that’s not the context here. The context here is a bunch of Jews who murdered Jesus and them being told what to do about it. They were told to repent and be baptized. Those two things were said in response to the question “what shall we do” (Acts 2:37). So they’re lost and they’re told “repent and be baptized.”

As for the phrase “for the remission of sins,” there is no actual Greek scholar on this planet, or any other planet, who will read the word “for” (“eis” in the Greek) and say the word in that verse means anything other than “in order to.” Every Greek Lexicon recognizes the word “eis” as speaking to a purpose rather than a cause. You’d think a “Greek guru” would know that, but I digress. Peter’s usage of the word means: “Repent and be baptized in order to have remission of sins.” The context bears that out, and not only that, but the grammar bears it out, too.

Also, the words of Jesus bear it out, because Acts 2:38 is, in part, a quotation from Jesus, who in the last supper, lifted the cup and said “this is My blood that is shed for many FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Matthew 26:28). Did Jesus mean He shed his blood “because of” remission of sins? Obvious not. Remission hadn’t happened yet. Did Jesus mean you receive remission of sins “so that” He can shed His blood? Obviously not. That doesn’t make any sense grammatically or contextually. But that’s the argument a so-called “Greek guru” posed, and it’s utter balderdash.

You can even set aside the Bible (not that you should!) and just go back through history, and you will find the unwavering understanding by Christians from the first century until the Protestant Reformation that ‘baptism’ put you in the kingdom of Christ. Granted, by the time of Luther, the Catholic Church had twisted the idea of baptism into being something you did to babies by pouring water on their head and to remove “original sin,” etc, but even then, the misapplication of the action was rooted in the understanding that the Bible says you must be baptized. It wasn’t until Luther and others pushed back on the (often heinous) works of the Catholic Church that the idea of “no you don’t have to do anything” popped up, as well as the “God will either save you or not; you have no say in the matter” argument, and the “you only have to say a prayer” argument, etc. Those were examples of people running too far in the other direction, in reaction to what the Catholics were doing wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right!

And even if you want to rip Acts 2:38 out of the Bible, you’re still left with Mark 16:16: “he that believes AND is baptized shall be saved.” But maybe we should rip that out too? That just leaves us… all the other New Testament verses that state the essentiality of baptism. Should we throw those away too? I wonder, how many verses or texts would have to be torn from the Bible in order for there to be NO verses that state the essentiality of baptism? The answer, in fact, is SEVEN!

Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-4, Galations 3:27, Colossians 2:12, and 1 Peter 3:21.

And those are just the seven most explicit ones. There are many others where the notion is implied (Matthew 28:19, Acts 8:36-38, Acts 10:47-48, etc). How many verses does it take before something is true? How many verses do you need to read to know what God says on the matter? How many verses do we have to remove from the Bible until we’re left with only the verses that talk about saying the sinner’s prayer? That’s a trick question because there is no sinner’s prayer in the Bible, but there are at least seven obvious verses that state the essentiality of baptism (while also stating the essentiality of belief and repentence, but I digress).

~Matthew