While Matthew 10:41 may mean something
like “receive a prophet because he is a prophet,” it may also mean “receive a
prophet into the treatment appropriate to a prophet” or “receive a prophet in
the name of a prophet” (the latter if εις is equivalent to εν as it often is). Similarly, Matthew 12:41 may mean “repented
because of the preaching of Jonah,” but it may also mean “changed their mind in
the direction of what Jonah preached” or “repented when Jonah preached” (again
if εις is equivalent to εν). (Stanley K. Fowler, More than a Symbol: The British Baptist
Recovery of Baptismal Sacramentalism [Studies in Baptist History and
Thought 2; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2002], 167)
There is no unanimity among
interpreters concerning the precise use of εις in these texts, and there is doubt about the causal use of εις in Hellenistic literature, which indicates the doubtful character
of this major premise of Robertson’s argument. (Ibid., 167)
A more profitable study of εις would consider other occurrences of the preposition in connection
with the forgiveness of sins. There are only four occurrences of εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων in the New
Testament apart from Acts 2:38. Matthew 26:28 uses the phrase to modify Christ’s
blood of the covenant, indicating that it is poured out “for the forgiveness of
sins,” clearly denoting purpose. Luke 24:47 (in a variant reading) refers to
the preaching of the gospel to all nations “for the forgiveness of sins,” and
this forgiveness is clearly the result (not the condition) of the preaching.
Both Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 describe John’s baptism as a βαπτισμα μετανοιας εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων, and given Luke’s statement that
the baptizands are seeking deliverance from eschatological wrath, the
forgiveness of sins here is something experienced through baptism rather than a
condition of baptism.
In the end, then, Robertson’s
construction of Peter’s comments is flawed in several ways: (1) The causal use
of εις is
very rare at best and perhaps unsubstantiated. (2) When the phrase εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, it indicates purpose,
not cause. (3) Robertson himself admitted that his conclusion was determined by
theology and not grammar, and his theology failed to note that other baptismal texts
are in fact very similar to Acts 2:38 and demand a similarly strained
explanation if they are to fit his system. (4) Even if the causal use of εις be granted in Acts 2:38, the text would still appear to say that
the gift of the Spirit occurs through both repentance and baptism, and this
would create just as much difficulty for anti-sacramentalists as the phrase
concerning forgiveness of sins. (Ibid., 168-69)
The second way to minimize
the force of Acts 2:38 recognizes the improbability of a causal εις but still sees in the text a threat to the idea of salvation by
grace through faith alone. The proposed solution is to connect the purposive εις to
repentance (μετανοησατε) rather than
baptism, thus making the baptismal clause a parenthesis. Support is found
within the text in the shift from the plural μεταωοησατε to the singular βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων and outside the text in Acts 3:19
where relief from sins is promised on the basis of repentance without reference
to baptism. One form of this argument focuses on the plural υμων which modifies the sins which are
to be forgiven, inferring that, “The concord between verb and pronoun requires
that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.”
Although this exegesis may be
possible, there are several weaknesses in the argument: (1) the shift from
plural to singular is explicable without disconnecting baptism from
forgiveness. The plural imperative for repentance is appropriate in view of the
fact that all the members of the crowd could change their mind about Jesus
simultaneously, but their baptisms could only occur individually and sequentially.
In any case, the exhortation to be baptized is coextensive with the exhortation
to repent (each addressed to all persons in the group listening to Peter), and
this explains why the pronoun modifying “sins” is plural rather than singular.
(2) As the narrative continues, it
is baptism which is noted in describing the conversion of 3,000 persons (vs
41), thus indicating its crucial character.
(3) Even if this parenthetical
interpretation be accepted, repentance and baptism are coordinated in a way
that seems to view both as means to the reception of the Spirit, thus supporting
the sacramental nature of baptism. (Ibid., 169-70)
