Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
Outside of John 3:3-5, this is perhaps the favourite text used in support of baptism being salvific. Here, in this verse, we have a statement from Peter that seems to teach rather explicitly that the instrumental means of the forgiveness of sins is baptism.
The Latter-day Saint interpretation of Acts 2:38 can found in a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1831:
Wherefore, I give unto a you commandment that ye go among this people, and say unto them, like unto mine apostle of old whose name was Peter: Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus, who was on the earth and is to come, the beginning and the end; Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins: And whoso doeth this shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of the hands of the elders of the church. (D&C 49:11-14).
Proponents of the symbolic view of baptism have made much about the preposition εις (“for” in Acts 2:38), which reveals much about the deceptive use of Greek many critics of the Restored Gospel engage in.
Some have argued, following the lead of J.R. Mantey, that εις in this verse as a “causal” or “resultant” meaning; namely, one is baptised because they had a remission of sins before baptism. An example from everyday English would be, “I took a tablet for my migraine”—one did not take the tablet to bring about a migraine, but because of one having a migraine, then they took a tablet.
However, this “causal” meaning of the Greek preposition εις can be refuted on many counts:
Firstly, both baptism and repentance are tied together, through the use of the coordinating conjunction και ("and"). If one wishes to suggest we are baptised because of our remission of sins, then the passage would also suggest that we must repent because of our remission of sins precedes repentance (in other words, our sins are forgiven, so as a result, we repent). I am unaware of any theological system that teaches such a view, and for good reason--it is a grossly unnatural, eisegetical reading of the construction.
Secondly, modern Greek grammarians (even those who hold the symbolic view of baptism) have refuted Mantey’s comments about εις. For instance, Daniel Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, pp. 370-71, we read the following:
On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that εἰς could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal εἰς was not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38.39
On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal εἰς so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation):
It is quite possible that εἰς is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal εἰς cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.40
Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal εἰς fell short of proof. . . .In sum . . . his ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction
Notes for the above:
39 See J. R. Mantey, “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” JBL 70 (1952) 45-58 and “On Causal Eis Again,” JBL 70 (1952) 309-311.
40 Ralph Marcus, “The Elusive Causal Eis,” JBL 71 (1953) 44. Cf. also Marcus’ first article, “On Causal Eis,” JBL 70 (1952) 129-130.
Another refutation of this argument comes from Matt 26:28. Speaking of the then-future shedding of his blood and its relationship to the Eucharistic cup, Christ says:
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
The Greek phrase, “for the remission of sins” is εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν; in Acts 2:38, it is exactly the same, except in Acts 2:38 there is a definite article (των) before “sins,” not causing any change in the meaning. Here, we see that those who hold to a “causal” meaning of εις in Acts 2:38 have to engage in a gross inconsistency (or, if they are consistent, adopt a very novel soteriology)—holding such an interpretation of εις, one will have to conclude (if one is consistent) that the remission of sins comes first, which then gives cause for the shedding of Christ's blood. The atonement, then, is no longer an action of Jesus in this sense. Of course, as with the "causal" interpretation of εις in Acts 2:38 is based on eisegesis, this interpretation of Matt 26:28, too, wrenches the underlying Greek out of context. Of course, only Latter-day Saints and others who hold to baptism being salvific can be consistent in their approach to both Matt 26:28 (on the relationship between remission of sins and the shedding of Christ’s blood) and Acts 2:38 (on the remission of sins and baptism).
Another crack in the symbolic understanding of Acts 2:38 can be seen when we examine other texts of the New Testament where Peter further reveals his theology of baptism.
In 1 Pet 3:19-21, we read the following (emphasis added):
By which [Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In verse 20, we read of how the “water” from the flood “saved” (σωζω) Noah and his family, and how baptism, said to be the fulfilment of ths Old Testament type (antitype [αντιτυπος]) “now save us” (νῦν σῴζει [“now saves you”]). Antitypes are always greater than their Old Testament types. Consider the brazen serpent in Num 21:8-9—those who looked at the serpent were healed, but only temporarily, and only members of the nation of Israel. Christ is likened to this serpent, but one brings about eschatological, not merely temporal, salvation, and not to Israel only, but all the nations (John 3:14-17).
This fits with the definition of αντιτυπος provided by Lexicons such as Johannes E. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon: Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed.:
ἀντίτυπος, ον: pertaining to that which corresponds in form and structure to something else, either as an anticipation of a later reality or as a fulfillment of a prior type - 'correspondence, antitype, representation, fulfillment.' ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα 'which corresponds to baptism which now saves you' 1 Pe 3.21; χειροποίητα ... ἅγια ... ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν 'a sanctuary ... made with hands ... corresponding to the true sanctuary' He 9.24.
Therefore, just as Noah et al. were (temporarily) saved “by water” (δι᾽ ὕδατος), we are saved by means of baptism, with baptism saving us in a greater manner, that is, salvifically (thus it being an antitype).
Some try to explain this away, arguing that it was the ark, not the water from the flood, that saved Noah. However, this ignores the fact that Peter is offering a typological interpretation of the flood water. Furthermore, Peter is rather explicit in linking baptism to the instrumental means of being saved.
This still begs the question as to why one would link the flood water with the water of baptism? The answer is that, just as the water from the flood destroyed all evil, the water of baptism brings about a forgiveness of our personal evils (sins), fitting this typological approach to the flood narrative in Genesis.
Note the following comments about 1 Pet 3:21 from scholarly commentaries:
That a type/antitype argument can be made in favour of baptismal regeneration is indeed biblical. Note the following from following from an essay on Alexander Campbell, a leading 19th-century advocate of baptismal regeneration, and his arguments in favour of the doctrine following this line of reasoning:
Sound exegesis shows that 1 Pet 3:21 proves baptismal regeneration.
Back to Acts 2:38:
Note the following comments about 1 Pet 3:21 from scholarly commentaries:
■ 21* This verse is joined to its predecessor by the relative pronoun ὅ, which, together with ἀντίτυπον (“antitype”) and βάπτισμα (“baptism”) serve as a compound subject of the verb σῴζει. It is the interrelationship of the pronoun and the two nouns that constitutes the syntactic problem of the first phrase of the verse. If, as seems likely, the relative pronoun is the subject of the verb, then the two remaining nouns stand in apposition to it There have been attempts to resolve the phrase differently: to take ἀντίτυπον as adjectival (“antitypical baptism saves you”); to take it as appositional to ὑμᾶς; to understand βάπτισμα as a proleptic antecedent to the ὅ; to include the first phrase with the end of the preceding verse, that is, “ … saved through water which even in reference to you (is) a pattern. Baptism now saves, not …”; to substitute the dative (ᾧ) for the nominative relative pronoun, accepting the reading of a few minor texts. The complexity of the sentence is, however, in all likelihood the result of the complex attempt to relate Noah and the flood as a means of deliverance to Christian baptism as a means of salvation, and ought thus to be allowed to stand. (Achtemeier, P. J., & Epp, E. J. (1996). 1 Peter : a commentary on First Peter (p. 266). Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press; emphasis added)
I would construe the pronoun ὃ, referring to water, with “antitype,” understood as a noun, and refer both to baptism. To give a more literal rendering than the above, “[W]ater, which antitype [the antitype of which], is baptism, now saves also you,” or “[W]ater, which in its antitype, baptism, now saves also you.” The former makes clearer that baptism saves, the latter puts more emphasis on the water in baptism as saving, but both renderings convey the idea that grammatically baptism, not the water of the flood, “saves you.” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the first five centuries [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009], 190-91)
That a type/antitype argument can be made in favour of baptismal regeneration is indeed biblical. Note the following from following from an essay on Alexander Campbell, a leading 19th-century advocate of baptismal regeneration, and his arguments in favour of the doctrine following this line of reasoning:
Campbell states what the order of the “ancient gospel” is: first a belief in Jesus; next immersion; then forgiveness; then peace with God; then, joy in the Holy Spirit.” This is Campbell’s conclusion after three articles of argumentation.
He begins the explanation of the design of baptism by noting its relationship in typology, particularly basing his reasoning upon Hebrews 10:22. He asserts, as a thesis, that “Christian immersion stands in the same place in the Christian temple, or worship, that the laver, or both [bath] of purification stood in the Jewish; viz. BETWEEN THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST AND ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP.” Just as the High Priest had to wash on the day of atonement before entering the Holiest of Holies, so the believer, before he can worship acceptably, must also have his body washed in the rite of baptism. Calling upon John 3:5, Titus 3:5; and Ephesians 5:26, Campbell concludes that Christian immersion is the antitype of the bath of purification for priests in the Old Testament. This is signaled by the use of the term “washing” itself.
Since baptism corresponds to an Old Testament “ablution,” Campbell demonstrates the New Testament “plainly” affirms that “God forgives men’s sins in the act of immersion.” He argues that disciples were conscious of a particular moment when their sins were remitted, and “a certain act by, or in which their sins were forgiven.” That act was the washing which they could remember or forget. Campbell introduces Acts 2:38 to verify this connection between remitted sins and baptism. There Peter “made repentance, or reformation, and immersion, equally necessary to forgiveness,” and if no other word were written on the subject, Peter’s command there would be “quite sufficient.” In consequence of what Peter says here Campbell believers that “in the very instant in which” a person is “put under the water,” he receives “the forgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Consequently, “Christian immersion is the gospel in water.” (John Mark Hicks, “The Recovery of the Ancient Gospel: Alexander Campbell and the Design of Baptism,” in David W. Fletcher, ed. Baptism and the Remission of Sins: An Historical Perspective [Joplin, Miss.: College Press Publishing Company, 1992], 111-70, here, pp.149-50).
If the type/antitype relationship exists between the priestly ablutions and water baptism, we can see their external relationship—the priest is cleansed from ritual impurity by immersion, and a Christian is immersed ritually. However, only by understanding baptism to be salvific can baptism be a true antitype of the priestly ablutions. If one were to hold to a purely symbolic view of baptism, a la Zwingli, Calvin, and much of modern Evangelical Protestantism, baptism was just as (non-)salvific as the priestly ablutions, which would make the Old Testament type as being just as great, vis-à-vis salvation, as its New Testament fulfillment. Latter-day Saint soteriology, however, allows for one to have baptism as the antitype of the priestly ablutions, and, unlike the mere symbolic view of our Evangelical critics, allows the antitype to substantially excel the type thereof.
Another discussion on typology comes from an article by a Catholic apologist, Jacob Michaels, who used to be associated with Robert Sungenis who authored Not by Faith Alone (Queenship, 1997), a wonderful book refuting sola fide. The article is entitled, "Baptism: the Laver of Regeneration" (the article is no longer available online, but I have a copy saved on my files, so if anyone wants a copy, will happily email it to them as an attachment); the relevant section reads as follows:
Jesus Himself gave us the example of what baptism does, a living lesson in action:
"And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mt. 3:16-17)
In this passage, we see again those three connected elements of receiving baptism: there is water, there is the Holy Ghost, and there is sonship with God. Jesus passes through this rite both to sanctify the waters of baptism with His presence, as well as to show us what is truly happening at every baptism. As we come up out of the waters of baptism, we receive the Holy Ghost, and are declared to be "children of God." No better living picture-lesson could be expected than this one.
In fact, this event is foreshadowed twice in Genesis, once in the initial creation story, and once in Noah's flood (which St. Peter alluded to in the passage cited at the beginning of this essay). The parallels between the Genesis narratives and baptism are clear: a "new creation" rises up out of the water, and the Holy Ghost hovers over the whole event, present at the moment of regeneration. The Spirit of God hovered over the waters at creation. Noah sent out a dove (the symbol of the Holy Spirit) to fly over the waters after the flood. All shadows of the real thing.
It is here that we begin to get into the more allegorical passages. Baptism in the New Covenant was prophesied by the prophets, who spoke of the coming day when God would wash His people and cleanse them from their sin. Ezekiel is one of the those prophets:
"And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will cause you to walk in my commandments, and to keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezek. 36:25-27)
Although it is a prophecy, the meaning can hardly be misunderstood. The imagery of water and cleansing is prominent, and it comes hand-in-hand with a new heart and a new spirit. This corresponds perfectly to all that the apostles claimed about baptism, that in that pouring out of water, the sinner received a new heart, and a new spirit, the Spirit of God, came upon him. This type of imagery is also used in Isaiah:
"Behold my servant shall understand, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and shall be exceeding high. As many have been astonished at thee, so shall his visage be inglorious among men, and his form among the sons of men. He shall sprinklemany nations, kings shall shut their mouth at him: for they to whom it was not told of him, have seen: and they that heard not, have beheld." (Is. 52:13-15)
What would be the meaning of "he shall sprinkle many nations," if it is not a reference to the New Covenant baptism instituted by "my servant," Our Lord Himself?
We see another foreshadowing by way of typology in the story of Naaman, the man stricken with leprosy who went to Elisha for a cure. The prophet told him to dip in the Jordan river seven times, and Naaman stormed off, angry and feeling like the object of a joke. We read:
"His servants came to him, and said to him: Father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, surely thou shouldst have done it: how much rather what he now hath said to thee: Wash, and thou shalt be clean? Then he went down, and washed in the Jordan seven times, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored, like the flesh of a little child: and he was made clean." (2 Kings 5:13-14)
There are several things to be drawn out of this story, things which can illuminate our understanding of baptism which has already been established by the plain words of the apostles and Our Lord. The fact that Naaman dips seven times is significant, for "seven" is a Hebrew word that also means "to swear an oath," or "to make a covenant." Seven is used as a symbol of covenant many times in Scripture (Gen. 2:2-3, Gen. 21:28-33, Gen. 29:18, etc.), and baptism is the doorway into the New Covenant, just as circumcision was for the Old (that is why St. Paul makes the comparison, among other reasons). Also, it should be noted that Naaman's skin after washing is described as being "like the flesh of a little child," which would correspond to the idea of being "born again," or "born anew" through baptism. There are also a few other similarities that could be further developed, such as Elijah as a type of John the Baptist (2 Kg. 1:8, Mal. 4:5, Mt. 11:14), whose successor (Elisha) would correspond to John the Baptist's successor (Jesus). Elijah is last seen at the Jordan river (2 Kg. 2:7-14), whereas John the Baptist first appears at the Jordan river, doing - what else? - baptizing repentant sinners. However, John's baptism cannot effect what only Jesus' baptism can, and so it is appropriate that it is Jesus' anti-type, Elisha, be the one to instruct Naaman to perform this typological action at the Jordan river.
Sound exegesis shows that 1 Pet 3:21 proves baptismal regeneration.
Back to Acts 2:38:
Some critics of this view of baptism point to Matt 12:41:
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at (εις) the preaching of Jonas [OT Jonah]; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
The argument is that εις here clearly has a “causal” meaning, as one cannot repent “into” one’s preaching or teaching. However, for those who make this argument (e.g. Eric Johnson), it reveals a poor grasp of how language works. In English, it is nonsensical to say, as the Greek of this verse reads, “into the proclamation of Jonas”; therefore, to make sense to English readers, most translations render εις as “at.” However, for a Greek reader and speaker, it is perfectly natural to think/read of one converting “into” the preaching of another. Think of the French way to ask for directions—in French, it is “pour aller” followed by “to” (á) and the destination. “Pour aller” literally means “for to go.” However, this would not be rendered into English as “for to go,” but “how do you get to”; however, for a French speaker, it is proper to speak of “how to go” to a certain place. Comments about Matt 12:41 that justify εις having a “causal” meaning only shows ignorance of both the Greek language and how language works, as there if often an inability to render perfectly one language into another without a translator having to take liberties to ensure readers will understand it in English.
As another example of a faulty linguistic argument to get around the plain meaning of Acts 2:38, Evangelical apologist, Gary F. Zeolla of "Darkness to Light Ministries," wrote an article entitled, "Questions about Baptism." In an attempt to downplay the salvific role of baptism in Acts 2:38, he wrote that:
As another example of a faulty linguistic argument to get around the plain meaning of Acts 2:38, Evangelical apologist, Gary F. Zeolla of "Darkness to Light Ministries," wrote an article entitled, "Questions about Baptism." In an attempt to downplay the salvific role of baptism in Acts 2:38, he wrote that:
"[R]epent" and "be baptized" in Acts 2:28 [sic; he means v.38] have different grammatical forms so they are not both linked with "the remission of sins." On the other hand, in Acts 3:19, the verbs "repent" and "be converted" do have the same grammatical forms. But baptism is not mentioned. So baptism is to be submitted to AFTER repentance and conversion.
This is a rather silly argument, but it does show that the old adage, "a little Greek is a dangerous thing" is alive and well.
The term translated as "repent" in Acts 2:38 is μετανοήσατε which is the imperative aorist active of the verb μετανοεω. The term translated as "be baptised" is βαπτισθήτω, the imperative aorist passive of the verb βαπτιζω. The difference (which the apologist does not tell us) is simply between an active and passive voice. Of course, as repentance is something one does, while baptism is something that is done to the person, that is the reason for the difference in voices. There is no hint whatsoever that Acts 2:38 separates baptism from the remission of one's sins, notwithstanding this rather weak argument.
In Acts 3:19, the term translated as "be converted" is ἐπιστρέψατε, again, the imperative aorist active, this time of the verb επιστρεφω, "to turn/return." However, it is simply question-begging to claim that, just because baptism is not mentioned in this verse, ipso facto, baptism is not salvific, in spite of texts explicitly tying it into salvation (e.g., Rom 6:1-4). Furthermore, it is akin to advocates of "no-Lordship" theologies citing Acts 16:31 ("Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved") as precluding repentance from salvation, in spite of other verses which are explicit in repentance being tied into the salvation formula (e.g., Rom 10:9, 13). Evangelicals, like Zeolla, are guilty of implicitly denying the practice of "tota scriptura" (taking into account the entirety of the Bible's message on a topic) an important element of the Protestant doctrine and practice of Sola Scriptura.