There is one other factor that must be considered here. Sometimes, we are fortunate enough to have a verse elsewhere in the Bible which is almost identical to one which is under consideration as potentially contradictory. If you’ll turn in your Bibles to Matthew 26:28, we’ll see how helpful such a verse can be in this kind of situation. Remember that the stated argument is that Peter said that one must “repent and be baptized because our sins have already been forgiven.” Read what Mt. 26:28 says: “For this is the blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” These last five words are an exact match in the Greek language to what we find in Acts 2:38 —“for the remission of sins.” The question must be asked, first of all, “Are these two statements identical in the Greek?” The answer must be, “Yes.”

If these statements are identical (and they are), then we must ask another question: “Must they be interpreted the same way?” If one wishes to maintain consistency and avoid Biblical contradiction (and remember that we were striving earlier to afford these objectors the benefit of whatever doubt may exist in their minds, so let’s do the same here), then the answer must be, “Yes, they must be interpreted in the same way [that these objectors interpret Acts 2:38].” So, let’s then read Mt. 26:28 in the same way as some would read Acts 2:38: “For this is the blood of the new testament, which is shed for many because their sins have already been forgiven.”

I’m sure you see the problem faced by those who maintain that baptism is not for obtaining remission of sins. At the time Jesus uttered these words, He had not yet faced the ordeal of the cross, nor had He shed His blood, but was instituting the memorial we know as the Lord’s supper — the eating of unleavened bread and the drinking of the fruit of the vine — symbols of His body that was given and His blood that was shed for the ultimate forgiveness of sins. The argument that baptism is only necessary to demonstrate our belief in the fact that our sins have [already] been forgiven falls completely apart in the face of the huge contradiction which appears in comparing Acts 2:38 with Matthew 26:28.

In order to maintain consistency with their translation of Acts 2:38, those who argue against baptism for the remission of sins must translate Matthew 26:28 in exactly the same way. It should be obvious to anyone that Jesus was not saying that He shed His blood because our sins were already forgiven, and several Bible verses will prove this point. Colossians 1:20 says, “And, having made peace through the blood of his cross…” Ephesians 1:7 says, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins…” Hebrews 9:22 says, “…and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Hebrews 10:10 says, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Then we read in 1 Corinthians 15:3, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures…”” Finally, read the words of Peter himself in 1 Peter 1:18-19, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot…”

These are only a few examples which demonstrate that the death of Jesus on the cross and the shedding of His blood on that same cross were absolutely essential if anyone was to hope to have their sins forgiven: “peace through His blood…”; “redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins…”; “redeemed…with the precious blood of Christ.”” Let us emphasize the point that forgiveness of sins was not possible until Jesus shed His blood on the cross; sins could not have been forgiven prior to the shedding of His blood. Therefore, Jesus did not say that His institution of the Lord’s Supper was done because sins had already been forgiven. What He did say was this: “this fruit of the vine represents the blood that I will shed on the cross…shed blood that will open the way for mankind to have the opportunity to have sins remitted.”

So, we must ask then, if Matthew 26:28 must read “for the remission of sins” or more precisely, “in order to receive the remission of sins.” and if we must render both Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38 in exactly the same wording in order to be consistent and avoid Scriptural contradiction, then how can anyone deny that baptism is “in order to receive the remission of sins”? Truly, both repentance and baptism must be accomplished by anyone who desires to obtain forgiveness of sins, and any argument which does not agree with this fact cannot stand up to the scrutiny of sincere Bible study.