In the case of the Ethiopian, Acts, chapter 8, we have the fullest account of an actual…case…of baptism. In verses 38 and 39, we read that after the Ethiopian had said, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” that they commanded the chariot to stop. They were riding along in a chariot. And Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him…. Now, what did Philip do when it says “he baptized him”? Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12—Philip buried him. And they both came up out of the water.

Just as there are three distinct words in our English language for “sprinkling,” “pouring,” and “immersion,” there are three distinct words in the Greek language for “sprinkling,” “pouring,” and “immersion.” There can be no mistake but that the Holy Spirit intended us to know the ACTION INVOLVED in baptism was to be IMMERSION, because THAT’S the word He chose in the pen of every inspired writer that wrote the word, BAPTIZO or BAPTISMA,as they wrote the Greek, and it means only “immersion; to dip; to plunge; to submerge; to overwhelm.” There cannot be the slightest doubt of the meaning of the term, and its action.

Does the Bible say what baptism is FOR? Yes, it tells us that. Those of you, including me, who love the King James Version (though I don’t believe it’s the “inspired version”) know that Acts 2:38 says, “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.” “Ah,” but someone says, “the word ‘for’ is capable of more than one meaning.” And they are right.

We use the word “for” in two different ways, probably everyday, in our conversations, and our minds automatically sense which meaning we have, or which meaning someone else has as they speak to us. If you go to Albertson’s for a gallon of milk, you go there in order to get a gallon of milk. But if your old Uncle Amos is in the state penitentiary for theft, he’s not there in order to steal. He’s there because he was convicted of theft! So there, you have the two different uses, one is pointing toward what you’re going to do—I’m going there FOR, IN ORDER TO GET, a gallon of milk. The other use is pointing in the opposite direction—Uncle Amos is there FOR, BECAUSE OF, being a thief.

And so, the argument is made that Peter is using that latter use of the word “for” in Acts 2:38, thus meaning, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ BECAUSE OF the remission of sins”—meaning, because they’ve already been remitted. Well, there are several problems with that. In the immediate context, a problem arises. Repentance bears the same relationship to remission of sins that baptism does—“Repent, and be baptized….” So, if baptism is “because sins have been remitted,” then repentance is because sins have already been remitted before people repent. I do not believe anyone can find a single case in all of the Bible where God either forgave or promised to forgive sins before the sinner repented. And Acts 2:38 is not an exception to that.

We have the unique privilege of having this identical phrase, “for remission of sins,” in another passage in the New Testament. The Bible is always its own best commentary. Someone once said, “The Bible sure does throw a lot of light on those commentaries!” In Matthew, chapter 26, the Lord instituted His Supper the night of His betrayal. In verse 26, we’re told that He took bread and instituted that part of the Supper. Then in verse 28, it says that He said of the cup, “…this is My blood of the new covenant, which is poured out (or “shed”) for many FOR the remission of sins.” Now, there’s your phrase.

Now, what does He mean in this passage? Is there any way He could be saying of the fruit of the vine in instituting the Lord’s Supper, standing for His blood, “This is My blood which has been poured out because the sins of mankind have already been forgiven”? You know, the truth of the matter is that there was no full, complete, final forgiveness of sins until Christ did shed His blood. Hebrews 10:4 says that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin [“For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”]. And Hebrews 9:22 says, “…without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” In God’s plan, from outside the Garden of Eden, forgiveness always required a blood sacrifice, but the ultimate blood sacrifice was that of Christ, and only in it is there the forgiveness and remission of the sins of mankind. He gave Himself a ransom for all, 1 Timothy, chapter 2 and verse 6.

No, the blood of Christ was not shed after the fact of remission of sins. It was shed in order that the sins of men might be forgiven, and whatever this phrase means in Matthew 26:28, it means exactly the same thing in Acts 2:38, and thus, it means “Repent and be baptized every one of you in order that you might receive the remission of sins.”

Here, the American Standard Version of 1901 has the clearer reading [of Acts 2:38], because it takes it out of the realm of controversy and shows the direction of the preposition: “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of your sins.” Yes, the Bible tells us what baptism is for—it is in order that man might come in contact with the blood of Christ and have his sins forgiven.

Does the Bible say anything about whether baptism is a work of human merit, or not? This is a thorny problem to millions of people. They have become convinced, because their preachers have convinced them, that if you accept what the Bible teaches (they would not put it that way, of course), but if you accept what the Bible teaches, that baptism is a condition of salvation, that makes baptism a meritorious act by which we earn our salvation. The truth of the matter is, the Bible teaches that baptism IS necessary for salvation AND it teaches that baptism is not a meritorious work of man!