Tertullian on the Physical Resurrection and 1 Corinthians 15:50

Commenting on how Tertullian understood Paul’s words in 1 Cor 15:50 (" . . .  flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God . . . ") with belief in the physical nature of the resurrection, Anglican Dennis Okholm wrote:

At this point one might ask how these early Christian thinkers can affirm a bodily resurrection when the Apostle Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that “flesh and blood” do not inherit eternal life. There is consensus among many of these that Paul was not speaking of bodily flesh but of the works of the flesh. Tertullian puts it well: “For not that is condemned in which evil is done, but only the evil which is done in it. To administer poison is a crime, but the cup in which it is given is not guilty. So the body is the vessel of the works of the flesh, whilst the soul which is within it mixes the poison of a wicked act” (Against Marcion, 5.10). As he says elsewhere, “Flesh and blood are excluded from the kingdom of God in respect of their sin, not of their substance” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 46). (Dennis Okholm, “The Dead Are Raised—But How and Why? Conversations with the Church’s Fathers and Mothers of the First Five Centuries” in Alonzo L. Gaskill and Robert L. Millet, eds. Life Beyond the Grave: Christian Interfaith Perspectives [Salt Lake City/Provo: Deseret Book/BYU Religious Studies Center, 2019], ,27-51, here, p. 43)

Owen K. Peterson on the Nature of Christ's Infinite Atonement

In a volume on Latter-day Saint soteriology, one author, instead of opting for a “penal”/forensic understanding of the atonement, “hit the nail on the head” so to speak about the nature of the atonement and Christ’s sufferings:

It is important to recognize that an infinite atonement is, by definition, unlimited. The Father did not add up the debt incurred by each of his children for each of their sins on each of his “worlds without number,” past, present and future, and then ask his Beloved Son to suffer for them on a tit-for-tat basis. Rather, the price paid far exceeded the debt owed, for the price paid was infinite. Because of it we do not need to worry about how much of a burden our individual sins may have added to Christ’s suffering—infinite plus or minus n is still infinite. We need only be grateful that his sacrifice was sufficient to cover all of the sins of all men belonging to the family of our Heavenly Father, worlds without number. He suffered so we won’t have to suffer. All he requires is what we feel sorry for those things we have done or have failed to do that have brought pain and suffering and injustice to others, and to love him and to love one another, and to accept his gift of forgiveness and redemption through faith and repentance.

Some have imagined that in bearing our sins Christ somehow experienced each of our sins individually in some mystical, omniscient way. We believe what he experiences was the consequence of our sins—or of anyone’s sins, and not our sins themselves. It seems to us that to experience, even vicariously, anger or hate or covetousness or lust is to be angry, hateful, covetous or lustful. Whereas, to experience the consequence of such sins is to experience the pangs of conscience and alienation, and the withdrawal of violating the royal law of love. In Jesus’ case, that involved descending below all things, even to the lowest hell, by experiencing complete abandonment and withdrawal of the powers of heaven. (Owen K. Peterson, The Joy of our Redemption: An LDS Scriptural Journey [4^th rev.; 2017], 69 n. 1)

On Moses Seeing the "Face" and "Back Parts" of God

While going through my files on my laptop, I came across the following I saved from Kevin Graham's old LDS Website (no longer accessible, but the URL was http://kevingraham.org/religion/fog.htm). It addresses Moses seeing "the face of God" in response to J.P. Holding, author of The Mormon Defenders (2001).

The Face of God

Gen 32:30  And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved 
Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Holding argues that the phrase “face to face” is an idiomatic phrase referring to awareness or presence, and would not necessarily refer to a literal face. We agree on this point. It is clear from parallel verses that the phrase means, “Being squared off with each other, front to front, and fully visible.” [1] However, this explanation doesn’t refute the prospect that God has a face, for this phrase was equally applied to Moses, who, I believe we can all agree, did have a literal face. Holding has provided a plausible explanation for this particular phrase, but this argument doesn’t help explain the phrase “eye to eye.” For example Moses declares to the Lord, “You, O LORD, are seen eye to eye.” [2]   This is an idiomatic expression in English which denotes agreement on a given point of view. But this is not the intent in the biblical context. These phrases are found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible:

Zedekiah king of Judah will not escape out of the hand of the Chaldeans, but he will surely be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will speak with him face to face and see him eye to eye...you will see the king of Babylon eye to eye, and he will speak with you face to face. [3]

The meaning behind each phrase is evident. “Face to face” is in the context of a verbal conversation while “eye to eye” is in the context of a visual encounter. Face can refer to inanimate objects such as water or earth, [4] but the phrase “eye to eye” only applies to things which have eyes. From this perspective, it logically follows that the Lord has eyes. It will not do to simply declare the phrase irrelevant to God’s anthropomorphic form when the biblical narrative as a whole reinforces such an interpretation.

Holding’s interpretation of Ex 33:18 deals with the “face” and “glory” by suggesting “the two are equivalent,” and then he draws our attention to the fact that Moses could not see God’s face. But there is no reasonable basis for assuming equality between these terms, since the narrative informs us that seeing God’s “face” would result in death. Meaning, if one thing kills you then so will the other. Yet, we know from many passages that the “glory” of God has been seen by humans who lived to tell about it.

Ex 16:10 … the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud
Ex 24:17 …the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire.
Lev 9:6 ... the glory of the LORD shall appear unto you.
Lev9:23 ...the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people.
Num 14:10 ...the glory of the LORD appeared…before all the children of Israel.
Num 14:22...all those men which have seen my glory.
Num 16:19 ...and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the congregation.
Num 16:42 ...the glory of the LORD appeared.
Num 20:6 ...the glory of the LORD appeared unto them.
Deut 5:24 ...the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory.
Ps 97:6 ...all the people see his glory.
Is 35:2 ...they shall see the glory of the LORD.
Is 66:18 ...they shall come, and see my glory.
Ezek 44:4 ...the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD: and I fell upon my face.

So where does Holding get the idea that glory and face are synonymous? Well, this is the only way he can make sense of the narrative while remaining loyal to his argument. The fact is the “danger motif” in seeing God’s face indicates that He really does have a face to see. If glory and spiritual essence were the only visual attribute to God’s nature, then how do we deal with the fact that this has been witnessed by those privileged few who didn’t die as a result? What is it that would actually kill him if not a literal face? Holding offers this theory:

The full, forward brunt of God's presence. Is that so hard to deduce?

Holding is forced to invent a concept that is nowhere to be found in the Bible (“full forward brunt”?). None of this is indicated from the text. “The logic of the whole passage,” says Orlov, “which employs such terms as God's ‘face’ and God’s ‘back,’ suggests that the term panim refers to the ‘forefront’.” [5] If God has no three-dimensional body then how would one be able to discern the difference between front and back? Holding didn’t even touch this issue in his book, but he comments in his response:

The issue is not whether God has a "three-dimensional body" but whether that body is human in form.

Actually they are both at issue. The human form supports the LDS position while the “formlessness” would support Holding’s Evangelical position. The text indicates at the very least that God is by nature a three-dimensional form. Why doesn’t Holding apply this logic to his own position? If God is comparable to an incorporeal mass of white glory such as that of a glorious star, then what could possibly be used to determine which side is the front and which is the back?

Uh, the side that comes toward you is the front, and that goes away from you is the back.

And what if He isn’t moving at all? This explanation is absurd, and Holding is dodging the fact that the Bible not only refers to God’s “face” and “back,” but also His “back parts.” This makes absolutely no sense in the context of the Evangelical assumption, for how would “back parts” be explained as an attribute for a formless mass of invisible essence? A blinding light moving away is viewed just as well as a blinding light moving closer. What preserved Moses’ life was not distance between them; it was the fact that God turned his “back parts” towards Moses, thus hiding His face with his hand. If these are simply metaphors, then let Holding explain their metaphorical meaning. Until he does, it is reasonable to conclude that scripture affirms God as a being with dimensions and anthropomorphic parts.

Or, capable of manifesting in them. As for it being a permanent part of His nature, that doesn't wash out even if Graham is 100% right in his exegesis.

Unfortunately Holding doesn’t bother to explain why. The Evangelical apologetic gets more diverse when presented with these verses because they maintain God is invisible by nature. But then they have to maintain that He can appear as a human to reconcile the verses in question, but argue that this is done strictly for relational purposes. But here they agree God hides his true nature from Moses because it would kill anyone who saw it. Well, how can something “invisible by nature,” be seen to begin with? This is nothing more than back and forth apologetic maneuvering. Holding doesn’t bother to explain any of this, but the enigma of it all makes his apologetic untenable. We’re just supposed to believe God “assumes” a human appearance for a “relational purpose,” although, for some unknown reason God chose to appear as a formless mass of glory to Moses – so much for the “relationship” on that occasion! – whose “back parts” can be determined through its regression

.

Can God Be Seen?

As Kirk rightly notes, “The attitude of Old Testament writers towards the possibility of seeing God was not unequivocal.” [6] While a clear tradition is seen, whereby a man is forbidden to see God lest he forfeit his life, the Bible is also clear that men have seen God. To some it seemed that no man could see God and live, apart from “an exceptional manifestation of the divine favour.” [7] In general it was agreed that Moses was specially favored. So in the story of the insubordination of Aaron and Miriam, Yahweh says:

Hear now my words: if there be a prophet among you, I Yahweh will make myself known unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all my house: with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of Yahweh shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses? [8]

So according to Yahweh, what Moses was permitted to view was “the form of Yahweh,” and he was the only person privileged to have this experience. This means all previous anthropomorphic visions reported by other prophets, are trumped by this unprecedented event on Sinai. Although Moses was forbidden to see God's face, his experience was unique because only he was permitted to see God up close and personal. Not in a vision or dream, but in reality.

So what of the danger motif? Samuel Meier, Associate Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Semitics at Ohio State University, had this to say:

A deity's physical manifestation is seen by human beings. The appearance of gods and their involvement with humans are common motifs in ancient Near Eastern and classical mythology. That similar phenomena are found in the Bible seems problematic at first, for a persistent tradition in the Hebrew Bible affirmed that death comes to any human who sees God. In most of these contexts, however, the narration undermines this sentiment by depicting the pleasant surprise of those who survive. The text presents this perspective as a misperception to which human beings subscribe, for no humans in the Bible ever die simply because they have seen God. On the contrary, throughout the Bible God wants to communicate intimately with humans. The problem of how God can adequately show himself to humankind without harm is a conundrum that is never really resolved in the Bible. [9]

Holding approaches this dilemma differently. He insists that the “danger motif” means that what these men saw couldn’t have really been God. But this assumption requires far more information than the Bible provides. Weinfeld and Orlov argue that the danger motif in seeing God, “support the idea that the human being actually can see the face of God.” [10] Holding asks how this is so, but the answer should be obvious. The text nowhere says man cannot see God’s face. It says man cannot see God’s face and live. Clearly this implies something above God’s shoulders that can be seen, or else the warning is dubious. At the least, with this information we can conclude that God’s natural state is not “invisible.”

Christi D. Bamford takes an interesting perspective and argues that since, “there is no record in the Hebrew Scriptures of anyone’s death as a result of seeing the God of Israel” that the warning was perhaps “hyperbolic” or would be eliminated “if God were the one to choose to reveal himself, and if the viewing were done under his conditions.” [11] To this Holding responds: “Exactly. Such as -- THEOPHANIES!”

But theophanies, as Holding understands them, have nothing to do with God’s true being, however the warnings against seeing God, have everything to do with seeing God for who he is. So the theophany excuse doesn't work in this instance. To support her argument Bamford draws our attention to the fact that,

The ark was dangerous only to someone who was not consecrated for the task. In 1 Samuel 6-7, when some of the men of Beth-Shemesh are slain by God for looking into the ark, “the men of Beth-shemesh said, ‘who is able to stand before the Lord, this holy God? And to whom shall he go up away from us?’”(1 Sam 6:20). The ark is then taken to the house of Abinadab, and after Eleazar is properly consecrated for the task all seems to go well (1 Sam 7:1). In addition, the sacred mountain seems to have been dangerous only to the average Israelites, as the leaders and priests were able to ascend it safely (Exod. 24:1,9-11). [12]

Here we find a direct parallel. The act of looking into the ark was synonymous with “standing before God.” Holding responds to this with:

That works nicely. Now then: How does this get around that "NO ONE" can see God's face and live? Obviously no "consecration" for seeing the face of God is described anywhere.

Holding is refusing to see the parallel and the problem it raises for his argument. Holding believes nobody can see God because the Bible says so. Yet, the same warning is found in the context of the ark. This shouldn’t be hard to deduce that a biblical warning in itself proves nothing, and this is the point which destroys Holding’s argument.

All Graham is doing is digging a deeper hole for his position.

No, what I am doing is providing parallel verses that shed light on this issue and make better sense of the narrative, whereas Holding is compelled by theological expediency to declare a paradox and call it quits. The fact is, the Bible is ambiguous on this issue, and Hendel concludes that Moses actually did see God, thus becoming an “exception that proved the rule.” [13]

Hendel here actually agrees with me in essence! He takes the tack that a paradox WAS created!

Actually, he doesn’t. Hendel says that, “the biblical rule that no one can see God and live has an exception in Moses, but that his example is unattainable for ordinary humans.” [14] Thus, he believes God was seen by Moses, in spite of the rule to the contrary.

But back to Bamford’s point. She notes that death was certainly expected of anyone who attempted to look inside the ark, but those whom God had set aside for the task were spared. Therefore, we must ask ourselves if there was something special about the men who stood before God and lived.

We must not only "ask ourselves," we must provide direct proof that there was something special about them. The "set aside" for priests is documented. What "set aside" Jacob and the elders is NOT specified.

Holding is missing the point. The fact is that there were other similar rules of “you can’t see that and live.” These rules were proved to be qualified without the paradox explanation. The narrative of the Sinai experience indicates much more that would support the LDS explanation. Detailed documentation for every single point of doctrine has hardly been a concern for Evangelical apologists, so why does Holding demand “proof” at this time for LDS? The LDS position responds to this so-called “paradox” with the following revelation: “no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God” (D&C 67:11). Further,

Because God is a being of transcendent glory, it is impossible for men and women to enter his presence without their physical bodies being spiritually “quickened.” The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that God “dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. ‘Our God is a consuming fire’” (TPJS, p. 367; cf. Heb. 12:29; Deut. 4:24). Transfiguration bestows on individuals a temporary condition compatible to that of deity and allows them to see God face-to-face. [15]

Holding responds,

Obviously, this is of use only if we accept the Mormon paradigm to begin with.

It is of use to anyone who wants to avoid having to rely on the cop-out argument of a “paradox.” I understand the unfortunate state of Evangelicalism, which hasn't the benefit of modern revelation, but that is beside the point. While there is no clear textual indication that Jacob had been “transfigured,” we do know that this was true of Moses and also Jesus. The Bible tells us that Moses was transfigured during his encounter with God (Ex 34:29) and we see in the New Testament that Christ was transfigured during his encounter with the heavenly messengers Moses and Elijah. (Matthew 17:1-6) The Greek term used (metamorphoo) is the root word for metamorphosis, which we use to describe the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly or a tadpole to a frog. The beings were not only changed in physical appearance, but were temporarily transformed to what we might consider a higher plain of existence. The purpose of this transformation was to spare their physical bodies from destruction. This also is explicated in LDS scripture: “But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him”(Moses 1.10-11).

It is clear that Moses' transformation was the result of his experience, not a precursor form of protection!

How is this “clear” when all we have is a description given by the Israelites who saw Moses coming down the mountain after the event? It is hardly “clear” that the transfiguration couldn’t have occurred before the event when we have no details of the 40 days and 40 nights prior to the event.

Holding is nit-picking, being hypercritical of a perfectly sound explanation, while at the same time ignoring the plethora of inconsistencies in his own. Ultimately, the Evangelical position does nothing to resolve the following problems. How is it that God is invisible by nature, yet He was visible to Moses?   For what purpose was Moses transfigured? What is the “metaphorical” meaning behind the “back parts” of God’s form? Holding provides none. He merely insists it must be a metaphor.

---

[1] Holman Bible Dictionary, Face.

[2] Numbers 14:14

[3] Jeremiah 32:4; 34:3

[4] Gen 1:2;29;2:6;4:14.

[5] Andrei Orlov, Seminar Papers 39, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting 2000 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000) 130-147.

[6] Kenneth E. Kirk, The Christian Doctrine of the Summum Bonum, The Bampton Lectures for 1928 (Longmans, Green and Co. London:1932) p.11

[7] C.F. Burney, The Book of Judges, (London: Rivingtons) p.193

[8] Num 12:6-8

[9] Samual A. Meier, “Theophany.” in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the BIble (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 740.

[10] Orlov, 135. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 207

[11] Christi D.Bamford, “Seeing God in the Hebrew Bible: The Name, The Glory, and The Messenger,” Masters Thesis 2001. Bamford is a Hebrew Professor - University of Georgia Dept of Religion.

[12] Ibib. Note 13.

[13] Ronald S. Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in The Image and the Book, 220-224.

[14] Email to Graham.

[15] Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1484

Further Reading

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

175th anniversary of Joseph and Hyrum Smith's Deaths and "Joseph Smith Worship" Addressed

As today is the 175th anniversary of the murders of both Joseph and Hyrum Smith, it appears rather apropos to share this article from a few years ago:

Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology

A.J.B. Higgins on "Remembrance" and the Eucharist

Commenting on the command to celebrate the Eucharist “in remembrance of [Christ]” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23-24), A.J.B. Higgins wrote:

The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, however, is in fact far more than a memorial feast. It possesses a strong eschatological outlook; and on his last night our Lord looked forward with confidence to a rendezvous with his friends in the Kingdom of God. Moreover, the Last Supper was in all probability a Passover meal, and therefore a firm feature of that festival may explain the injunction that the Last Supper was to be repeated as a remembrance.

The following key passages illustrate the centrality of the idea of remembrance in the Passover.

Ex. 12.14: ‘And this day shall be unto you for a memorial (lezikkaron, LXX μνημοσυνον), and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord: throughout your generations you shall keep it a fast y an ordinance for ever.’

Deut. 16.3: ‘That thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the Lord of Egypt all the days of thy life.’

Ex. 13.3: ‘Remember this day, in which you came out from Egypt.’

Ex. 13.9: ‘And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial (lezikkaron, LXX μνημοσυνον) between thine eyes.’

The precept to tell the children the meaning of the festival (Ex. 12.26f; 138) is the basis of the Passover Haggadah, by which the memory of the event is to be kept fresh, and each individual in every generation is to feel that he shares in the deliverance from Egypt.

It is held by W.D. Davies, but from quite a different angle than that of Lietzmann, that the command to repeat ‘in remembrance’ is due to Paul, who, regarding the Last Supper as a new Passover, has imported into it the element of remembrance which is characteristic of the latter. One wonders, however, how Paul could have been the first to do this, though Davies, it is true, does allow that he was but making explicit what was already implicit, and even in the mind of Jesus himself.

Strongly in favour of the possibility that the words ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ should be attributed not to Paul, but to a tradition used by him is the un-Pauline language of the whole pericope. (A.J.B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament [Studies in Biblical Theology 5; London: SCM Press, 1952, 1964], 35-36)

Henry Hudson: Declaring of True and False Doctrines are Encompassed in "Binding" and "Loosing" in Matthew 16

In a rather hit-and-miss (largely miss, to be honest) critique of Catholic teachings about the papacy, one Protestant (Calvary Chapel) apologist, wrote the following about the meaning of “binding and loosing,” and (perhaps unintentionally) argues for a rather Catholic/Eastern Orthodoxy/LDS understanding thereof, as it relates, not just to morals, but also the issue of declaring doctrines (something many Protestant apologists claim is not in view in Matt 16:18-19; cf. D&C 124:93):

What the notion of this authoritative binding and loosing means can be gleaned from both biblical and contemporary rabbinical source. John Lightfoot wrote of the possibility of producing thousands of examples of this particular concept from rabbinical writings. He asked, ‘To think that Christ, when he used the common phrase, was not understood by his headers in the common and vulgar sense, shall I call it a matter of laughter or of madness?’ (Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations [Oxford: University Press, 1859], p. 234-40) From all examples cited from the school of Shammai, and from the school of Hillel, both of which were influential in the days of Christ, the meaning of quite clear. The phrase was used with reference to doctrines and judgements, and the idea of binding conveyed the meaning of forbidding and loosing signified permission. That such was indeed the intention may be inferred from such New Testament references as Matthew 13:52; 23:13; Luke 11:52. The last reference is particularly noteworthy for it connects the concept of ‘the key of knowledge’, that is, the truth concerning entrance into the kingdom of God. Peter and the other apostles were instructed in this matter, and they exercised their binding and loosing authority frequently throughout the early history of the book of Acts (see Acts 2:37-47; 3:1-26; 4:1-12; 5:17-32; 15:1-29; 21:17-26). (Henry T. Hudson, Papal Power: Its Origins and Developments [Evangelical Press, 1981], 103, emphasis added)

Answering Ken Lenz on Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians 1:17, and Baptismal Regeneration

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NASB)

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. (1 Cor 1:17 NASB)

 Attempting to explain away Acts 2:38, one defender of a symbolic understanding of water baptism wrote the following:

For those who believe that water baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, this verse appears to serve as a convincing proof text. For those who understand the broader context of Scripture as teaching that water baptism is not required for the remission of sins or for salvation as a whole, there is a plausible explanation of this verse. In the phrase, “for the remission of sins,” the word “for” is a translation of the Greek word “eis,” which can be understood as “because of,” rendering the meaning of the verse as exhorting repentance, and then being baptized “because of the forgiveness of sins” already granted on the basis of that repentance, and as a testimony to it.

An illustration of this rendering could be seen even from the English usage of the word “for” in the following example. If someone were to say, “Take two aspirin tablets ‘for’ a headache,” you could interpret that as meaning either to take two aspirins to receive a headache or “because of” already having a headache. In a similar way, it is believed that this verse means that these Jews were exhorted to be baptized “[because of] the remission of sins” they would have already received—and to demonstrate the sincerity of their repentance and faith.

Actually, the Greek word “eis” (whose primary meaning is “into”) is translated several ways in the New Testament, depending on the context. In Matthew 12:41 we see the word as follows: “The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at [Gk.: eis] the preaching Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.” The clear understanding is that the Ninevites repented “because of” the preaching of Jonah. (Notice, too, the emphasis on repentance; also, of course, there was no requirement of baptism.) Dr. Warren Wiersbe wrote in his commentary:

It is unfortunate that the translation of Acts 2:38 in the King James Version suggests that people must be baptized in order to be saved, because this is not what the Bible teaches. The Greek word eis (which is translated “for” in the phrase “for the remission of sins”) can mean “on account of” or “on the basis of.” In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist baptized on the basis that people had repented. Acts 2:38 should not be used to teach salvation by baptism. If baptism is essential to salvation, it seems strange that Peter said nothing about it in his other sermons (Acts 3:12-26; 5:29-32; 10:34-43). In fact, the people in the home of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized (Acts 10:44-48)! (Wiersbe, vol. 1, p. 410); emphasis in original)

We could also note that the Greek grammar suggests that the word “repent” (being in the second person, plural) is more closely associated with the phrase “and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (“you” being also in the second person, plural); while (literally) “be baptized each of you” is in the singular form, as is also the phrase “[because of] the remission of [your] sins.” Those who have repentant faith in Christ are to be baptized, each one, because of having already been forgiven, individually! (Ken Lenz, Water Baptism and Spirit Baptism: As Taught in the Scriptures [Bloomington, Ind.: Xlibris, 2017] 119-20, emphasis in original; note that the author is forced to admit that the primary meaning of εις in “into” on p. 120)

Elsewhere, on 1 Cor 1:17, the same apologist wrote:

What is most noteworthy about I Corinthian 1:10-17 in regard to water baptism is (1) the relatively few people that the Apostle Paul baptized, (2) the relative unimportance Paul placed upon it, (3) the emphasis on Paul’s calling to “preach the gospel,” and (4) the divisiveness and misuse of baptism that had so soon emerged.

As with many churches today, the misuse of baptism in Corinth was based on both the elevated importance assigned to it and the veneration of humans arising out of it. Paul opposed such perversions, bringing the focus back onto Christ and His crucifixion, and to the preaching of the gospel. Many denominations and even branches of Christianity assign to water baptism the significance of being a means through which God’s grace is bestowed; however, such a doctrine is not taught in Scripture, nor is it seen in the example given in Scripture. Then too, entire branches of Christianity venerate certain “saints,” while the Scriptures teach that we are not to exalt others, and that actually all believers are “saints” (e.g., Acts 26:10; Rom. 1:7; 8:27; I Cor. 1:2; II Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; 4:12; etc.)

The Apostle mentioned those whom he baptized, merely to serve as an illustration of the relative unimportance of this religious rite when compared to salvation through the gospel of Jesus Christ. He went so far as to state, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except . . .” and then he named only a couple of individuals. Would he have expressed such a perspective (under the inspiration of God) if baptism were a means through which God dispenses His grace—either saving grace or sanctifying grace? After mentioning a few names (including one as an after-thought, as if to further imply its relative unimportance), Paul then stated, “Besides [these], I do not know whether I baptized any other” (1:16).

The point is not that Paul had a poor memory, but that water baptism is not to be regarded as essential to one’s faith or spiritual development, or to one’s ministry (i.e., service to others). If it were, Paul would not have written of it in such a manner. He goes so far as to write, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1:17). It is through the preaching of the gospel that men, women, boys and girls come to faith in Christ. This is what brings salvation and spiritual growth. (Ibid., 188-89, emphasis in original)

 To see why Lenz is simply wrong in his (pathetic, frankly) attempt to downplay the salvific role of water baptism, see the following where one will find a detailed exegesis of Acts 2:38 and 1 Cor 1:17, including a discussion of the preposition εις ("for"/"into"):

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

As for Cornelius and his household, such is not problematic for water baptism being salvific; see:

Acts 10:47, Cornelius, and Baptismal Regeneration; Does Cornelius Help Refute Baptismal Regeneration?; Was Cornelius Converted Before Acts 10?; and Ernst Käsemann on Baptism and the Spirit in Acts 8 and 10