The first item of business on their spiritual agenda was to
"repent." Normally, repentance, in its fullest
sense, conveys the idea of a change of mind accompanied by a
reformation of character. In this instance, however,
"repent" signifies merely a conduct alteration, the
contrition of heart being evidenced already. Those who labor
under the illusion that repentance is merely a mental process, or a
verbalized, "I'm sorry," with no subsequent
requirement to abandon the practice of sin, have crafted for
themselves a theology of convenience that has no basis in
Truth.
Attached to "repent," by the conjunction
"and," is the command "be baptized every one of
you." Baptism is immersion and nothing else.
Translators have anglicized the original term baptize, i.e.,
brought it directly from Greek to English with only a minor
spelling alteration, in order to obscure the true action of the
verb, thus protecting those alternate "modes"
(sprinkling or pouring) which have become so popular. Note,
however, that bapto is rendered "dip" in several
places (Luke 16:24; John 13:26;
Revelation 19:13) where no theological doctrine is at
stake! Prominent church historian John Lawrence Mosheim, a
Lutheran, says that in the first century baptism "was
performed by immersion of the whole body in the baptismal
font" (I, 36). For further consideration, see
[Acts] 8:38. Professor Gordon Fee
was quite mistaken when he characterized baptism as a
"primary" obligation, but suggested that the
"mode" was merely "secondary" (Fee-Stuart,
98). Both the obligation and mode are primary; the place
(river, pool, etc.) is secondary. Again Fee says:
"Scripture simply does not say that baptism must be by
immersion..." (100). That is equivalent to
saying: "Scripture does not say that immersion
must be by immersion." Does that make any sense
at all?
Both repentance and immersion are said to be "for the
remission of sins." The term "remission"
basically means to "send away." It represents
complete pardon. This passage is a source of consternation to
many "clergymen" because it contradicts the
"salvation by faith alone" dogma. The English
term "for" is a rendition of the Greek preposition
eis. The meaning is "to obtain."
Noted lexicographer J. H. Thayer rendered the phrase in Acts
2:38, "to obtain the forgiveness of sins"
(94). Arndt-Gingrich translated the expression "so that
sins might be forgiven" (228). A.T. Robertson, a
Baptist--who had no difficulty in ascertaining that eis
signified "purpose" in Matthew 26:28
["This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for
many FOR the forgiveness of sins"]--noted that the
matter is one of "endless controversy," and so he
sought to find a view consistent with his Baptist theology.
He suggested that "because of" could be a meaning for
eis. However, the great scholar revealed more than he
intended when he, in his massive Historical Grammer,
asserted (regarding eis in [Acts]
2:38), that sometimes grammar must give way to
theology (389).
The term eis is employed some 1,773 times in the New
Testament (Smith, 109), and never is it translated "because
of." Furthermore, it is obvious that
"repent" and "be immersed" have the same
goal, inasmuch as these verbs are joined by the conjunction
"and." Therefore, "because of" could
not possibly be the meaning if eis in this passage.
Shall it be argued that one repents "because of"
forgiveness already received?
Some, however, attempt to separate the verbs so as to divorce
immersion from "remission of sins." Stanley
Troussaint of the Dallas Theological Seminary has argued that
because "repent ye" is a plural form, and
"remission of your sins" is plural, these
phrases must go together, and since "be immersed each of
you" is singular, this phrase must be separated from
the others. The net result of this fanciful interpretation is
that it drives a wedge between baptism and the remission of sins,
thus satisfying the professor's Baptist theology (359).
The grammatical theory is pure invention with no basis in sound
scholarship. As a matter of fact, the argument is not
new. N. B. Hardeman dealt with this quibble in his debate
with Ben N. Bogard in 1938.
In early 1968, I wrote a letter to F.W. Gingrich,
co-translator of the famous Arndt-Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. The letter, dated February 12, 1968, reads as
follows:
Dear Professor Gingrich: Is it grammatically possible
that the phrase "for the remission of sins," in
Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs,
"repent ye" and "be baptized each one of
you," even though these verbs differ in both person and
number?
From Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania (February 21,
1968), Gingrich replied:
Yes. The difference between metanoesate (repent)
and baptistheto (be baptized) is simply that in the first,
the people are viewed together in the plural, while in the second
the emphasis is on each individual.
