7. READ: ACTS 2:1-47
g. What did Peter tell them to do?
Answer: Peter replied to their question, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, (verse 38).
From The Acts of the Apostles From Jerusalem to Rome by Wayne Jackson (who is using the King James Version of the Bible):
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.