The conversion of the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Nov 12, 2024
32
9
8
Logic and H2O~~~So anyone who has gone swimming or has taken a bath.......Do they just need to believe?
I know you mean something with this comment but I am not sure what it is.

But swimming or taking a bath is not baptism.

This is baptism:

1st Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
3,316
1,199
113
New Zealand

Believer08

Active member
Jan 27, 2025
266
63
28
Baptism For The Remission Of Sins

by David Padfield

We have all been told "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Some commentators have apparently followed this advice when dealing with Acts 2:38. A. T. Robertson, the world renowned Baptist scholar, sought to avoid the issue in his Word Pictures In The New Testament (Broadman Press, 1930). In Volume III, on pages 35 and 36, while commenting on the phrase "for the remission of sins," as used in Acts 2:38, he wrote, "This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology ...One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not." But, while explaining the same phrase in Matthew 26:28, he wrote in Volume I, page 210, "This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as a basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins."

Another smoke screen often used to get around Acts 2:38 is the argument that since the words "repent" and "be baptized" are different in both person and number in the original text, the phrase "for the remission of sins" cannot refer to both verbs.

A few years ago I wrote to several prominent Greek scholars to see if the above line of reasoning was valid. The question I sent to them was as follows: "Is it grammatically possible that the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion,' 'for the remission of sins,' as used in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs, 'repent ye and be baptized each one of you,' even though these verbs differ in both person and number?" The following men responded to my inquiry. I will give their qualifications along with their response to my question.

Bruce Metzger was the editor of the Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies. He is currently teaching at Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey. He wrote, "In reply to your recent inquiry may I say that, in my view, the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion' in Acts 2:38 applies in sense to both of the preceding verbs."

F. W. Gingrich was a professor of New Testament Greek at Albright College in Reading, Pennsylvania. Gingrich, along with William Arndt, published A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature in 1957. He wrote, "The difference in person and number of 'repent' and 'be baptized' is caused by the fact that 'repent' is a direct address in the second person plural, while 'be baptized' is governed by the subject 'every one of you' and so is third person singular. 'Every one of you' is, of course, a collective noun."

Arthur L. Farstad was the chairman of the New King James Executive Review Committee and general editor of the NKJV New Testament. The NKJV was translated by over 120 Greek scholars, many of whom teach in Baptist schools. He wrote, "Since the expression 'eis aphesin hamartion' is a prepositional phrase with no verbal endings or singular or plural endings. I certainly agree that grammatically it can go with both repentance and baptism. In fact, I would think that it does go with both of them."

John R. Werner is the International Consultant in Translation to the Wycliffe Bible Translators. He was also a consultant to Friberg and Friberg with the Analytical Greek New Testament. From 1962 to 1972 he was professor of Greek at Trinity Christian College. He said, "Whenever two verbs are connected by kai 'and' and then followed by a modifier (such as a prepositional phrase, as in Acts 2:38), it is grammatically possible that modifier modifies either both the verbs, or only the latter one. This is because there is no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts, so we don't know whether the author intended to pause between the first verb and the 'and.' It does not matter that, here in Acts 2:38, one of the verbs is second person plural ("y'all") and the other is third-person singular ("is to"). They are both imperative, and the fact that they are joined by kai 'and' is sufficient evidence that the author may have regarded them as a single unit to which his modifier applied."

Barclay Newman and Eugene Nida edited The Translator's Handbook On The Acts Of The Apostles. This book, published by the United Bible Societies, says on page 60: "So that your sins will be forgiven (literally 'into a forgiveness of your sins') in the Greek may express either purpose or result; but the large majority of translators understand it as indicating purpose. The phrase modifies both main verbs: turn away from your sins and be baptized."

The New Testament plainly teaches that accountable people have to be baptized into Christ in order to have their sins remitted. Have you been baptized for the remission of sins? "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16).
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,724
13,665
113
59
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received." The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

Elsewhere, AT Robertson said - Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve.

Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. *These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.

Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,724
13,665
113
59
Sins are remitted literally, by the blood of Christ—Matthew 26:26-28

Experientially, by faith in Christ—Acts 10:43 implied in repentance (Acts 3:19)

Ceremonially, by Baptism—Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21.

In regard to coming in contact with His blood, through His blood" (as in Ephesians 1:7 & Colossians 1:14) is a reference not limited to the fluid as if the blood has saving properties in it's chemistry and we literally contact it in the waters of baptism, but is an expression pointing to the totality of Christ's atoning work as a sacrifice for sin. The word "cross" is used similarly to refer to the whole atoning work of Christ on the cross. (1 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 6:12,14; Ephesians 2:16)
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,724
13,665
113
59
The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body." (Matthew 26:26) The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed he washes away his sins in the same sense Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the blood of Christ by which sins are actually washed away. (1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5)

Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary makes not of the importance of the Greek in Ananias' statement. When Ananias tells Paul to "arise, be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," the tense of the last command is literally "having called" (aorist middle participle). "Calling on [epikalesamenos] --- 'having (that is, after having) called on,' referring the confession of Christ which preceded baptism." [Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, vol. 3 pg. 160].

Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name."

Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html
 
Nov 12, 2024
32
9
8
I understand your response. Instead of simply accepting scripture as written many will find any reason to not believe the gospel.
There are no Bibles that translate the scriptures in such a way as mailmandan is suggesting, even his own Bible does not use such verbiage.

Of the thousands of Bible versions in existence, either old or recent none read such a way.
Of the thousands of translations in any language none read such a way.

Faith alone theology is a weak narrative based of a surmised understanding of general statements of faith i.e. John3:16.
As well as a blatant attempt to negate other scriptures i.e. Acts 2:38.

Baptism is as important as the red sash tied by Rehab or the line thrown by Peter.

Their actions were not works of merit but needed works never the less.

They cannot see this but your efforts are noble.
 
Jan 27, 2025
266
63
28
I understand your response. Instead of simply accepting scripture as written many will find any reason to not believe the gospel.
There are no Bibles that translate the scriptures in such a way as mailmandan is suggesting, even his own Bible does not use such verbiage.

Of the thousands of Bible versions in existence, either old or recent none read such a way.
Of the thousands of translations in any language none read such a way.

Faith alone theology is a weak narrative based of a surmised understanding of general statements of faith i.e. John3:16.
As well as a blatant attempt to negate other scriptures i.e. Acts 2:38.

Baptism is as important as the red sash tied by Rehab or the line thrown by Peter.

Their actions were not works of merit but needed works never the less.

They cannot see this but your efforts are noble.
When someone doesn’t want to take the Bible for what it says, tries to define a verse not to mean what it says in a way which completely contradicts the scriptures, then there’s a problem. People would never do that in a real life situation when it came to their physical lives, but will with their spiritual. Sad.

If a doctor said to repent and be baptized for the remission of cancer, how many people would argue against the need for baptism? Yet, when it comes to being baptized for the remission of sins, they will fight tooth and nail, which tells me people are more concerned with their own physical health instead of their spiritual health. It also tells me they’d rather take man’s word instead of God’s. Sad.
 
Nov 12, 2024
32
9
8
When someone doesn’t want to take the Bible for what it says, tries to define a verse not to mean what it says in a way which completely contradicts the scriptures, then there’s a problem. People would never do that in a real life situation when it came to their physical lives, but will with their spiritual. Sad.

If a doctor said to repent and be baptized for the remission of cancer, how many people would argue against the need for baptism? Yet, when it comes to being baptized for the remission of sins, they will fight tooth and nail, which tells me people are more concerned with their own physical health instead of their spiritual health. It also tells me they’d rather take man’s word instead of God’s. Sad.
Well said.

Timothy 4:3
A time will come when people will not listen to accurate teachings. Instead, they will follow their own desires and surround themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear.

Mailmandan presents these "scholars" because they relieve the itch of his weak theology.

I have no need to present the thousands of scholars who have and are accurately translating the Bible into modern language as well as the multitudes of other tongues around the world.
 
Jan 27, 2025
266
63
28
Well said.

Timothy 4:3
A time will come when people will not listen to accurate teachings. Instead, they will follow their own desires and surround themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear.

Mailmandan presents these "scholars" because they relieve the itch of his weak theology.

I have no need to present the thousands of scholars who have and are accurately translating the Bible into modern language as well as the multitudes of other tongues around the world.
Doctor: Repent and be baptized to receive the remission of cancer and ye shall receive the gift of being cancer free

Patient: *Gets baptized without hesitation*

The word of God: 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. (Acts 2:38)

Patient who is infected with sin: *refuses to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins* tries to find another way.
 
Oct 19, 2024
3,029
688
113
Paul and Silas were in a Roman jail. It was about midnight, and they had been praying and singing hymns to God. The other prisoners were listening to them. How much the jailer actually heard is uncertain because he was asleep when an earthquake shook the foundations of the prison and “immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed.” When he woke up, he saw that all of the doors were open and he thought all of the prisoners had escaped. Roman law demanded that if you were given a prisoner to guard and you let that prisoner escape, it was your life for his; you would be killed. So the jailer drew his sword and was about to kill himself, but Paul called out and said, “ Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” Then the jailer asked Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved. Before we look at Paul’s answer, let’s notice some things that Paul did NOT say.

Paul did NOT say, “ You don’t have to do anything; God has already done it all.” But that is what men tell people today. Neither did Paul say, “Just repeat the sinner’s prayer and you will be saved.” That is a very popular answer to that question today; again from MEN not God).

Remember that this jailer was a Roman; if he was religious at all he would have Been an idolater. He was a pagan. He knew nothing about Jesus Christ—a Jew who had lived 6000 miles away. He didn’t know who Jesus was or anything about Him. Cold he have heard of Jesus? Possibly, but then Paul would not have had to “speak the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house”, which is what the very next verse (32) says. There was no way the Jailer could have been saved at the moment Paul told him to believe. He didn’t know who or what to believe in until he heard what Paul had to say. This verse (31) is used erroneously to teach “faith only” salvation. But a close examination shows that he could not have had faith in Christ at that moment—before he had even known there was a Christ.

So what happened after Paul taught him the “word of the Lord?” He “bore the fruit of repentance” Matthew 3:8, when he took Paul and Silas and “washed their stripes” where they had been beaten by the Roman officials, and IMMEDIATELY, he and all his family were baptized. Here we have someone again, like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8) who was taught the gospel of Christ and somehow they all IMMEDIATELY, want to be baptized. How could they know about baptism and why want to be baptized immediately? It had to have been in the teaching that Phillip did in Acts 8 and the teaching that Paul did to the Jailer. In Acts 16. The earthquake happened at midnight. Then Paul taught him the “word of the Lord”— we don’t know how long that took but I can’t imagine he only spent a few minutes telling him about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in addition to the man Jesus, faith, and baptism. Then, the Jailer “washed their stripes”. It must have been in the wee hours of the morning by this time. Why insist on being baptized IMMEDIATELY, if baptism is not necessary for salvation? Why even teach about it in the wee hours of the night? They could have easily put it off to a more convenient time—even the next day. These are all questions that need to be given thought and study.


Men today tell people that baptism is not necessary and that you don’t have to be baptized to be saved. But that is not the picture we get from the Bible, both in examples, as in the conversion of the eunuch, the jailer, Saul of Tarsus, and the Jews on Pentecost; and in the commands that we read in the Bible like Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, and Acts 22:16.

There is one last part of this story that is very important and very “telling.” Read verse 34; after his baptism, the jailer “ rejoiced, having BELIEVED in God with all his household.” This proves that there is MORE to “Believe in the Lord and you shall be saved,” than just “faith”.

IN VERSE 30, the jailer asked “what shall I do to be saved?”
IN VERSE 31, Paul says “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.”
IN VERSE 32, “ They spoke the word of the Lord to him”
IN VERSE 33, he showed evidence of repentance and was baptized.
IN VERSE 34, “He rejoiced HAVING BELIEVED IN GOD”.

And now you know the “rest of the story.” This is the WHOLE story of how the jailer was saved. Beware of men who would tell you a DIFFERENT story of the jailer’s salvation.
Has anyone mentioned that the question regarding how to be saved by the Philippian jailer is equivalent to the question asked by the rich young man in MK 10:17/MT 19:16 and by the expert in the law in LK 10:25?

The answer in MK/MT was "Sell everything (become poor) and follow Me/Jesus",
and the answer in LK was "Love the Lord... and Love your neighbor."