Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
The only thing Bauer Arndt and Gingrichdoes here is offer some passages that are used as a proof text for what he admits is a controversial argument. This does not mean they hold this view.
Here are the examples offered by Bauer Arndt and Gingrich
Matthew 12:41,and Luke 11:32
Here is one argument I have been given on these two testa in the past. I am sorry, but I do not remember the source of the argument on this text: “The word εἰς communicates the 'result' of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word εἰς). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they had already believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins.”
My response is simply this. This misrepresents the use of the word εἰς altogether. The definition of the word itself defies any backward motion and cannot be translated as "because of" the preaching of Jonah, nor does any English translation I know of dare to translate it in such a fashion. No linguistic scholar is going to be this grossly irresponsible. The meaning of the word εἰς pushes the direction of the repentance forward – they repented toward the preaching of Jonah. Here the better rendering of εἰς would be "at the preaching of Jonah" which is perfectly acceptable and this is how it is translated in the more than twenty English translations I have examined, although a few of the paraphrased versions render it as "when Jonah spoke." But, what they all have in common is that NONE of them translate this as "because of the preaching of Jonah." I wonder why that is? If you want this verse to say 'because of' the preaching of Jonah the text would have to be written ὅτι τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ but that is not what he said. He said, εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ. We must construct the translation according to the definition of the words used. We cannot simply assign any definition to the language we want.
Romans 4:20
This is the same as the two previous texts. Here the better rendering of εἰς would be "he did not waver in unbelief" which perfectly agrees with the definition of εἰς and this is how it is translated in most English translations, although a few render it as "through unbelief" which I regard as highly questionable. But, what they all have in common is that NONE of them translate this as "because of unbelief." I wonder why that is?
The final text they offer for those who argue for the casual use is Matthew 3:11where John says, "I baptize you for repentance. εἰς is used here the same way it is used in Acts 2:38 with forward movement and is rendered in most English translations as for or unto but NEVER as "because of repentance." The one translation that missed it altogether is the ISV which renders it "as evidence of repentance." This is not translating, this is interpretation.
The only thing Bauer Arndt and Gingrichdoes here is offer some passages that are used as a proof text for what he admits is a controversial argument. This does not mean they hold this view.
Here are the examples offered by Bauer Arndt and Gingrich
Matthew 12:41,and Luke 11:32
Here is one argument I have been given on these two testa in the past. I am sorry, but I do not remember the source of the argument on this text: “The word εἰς communicates the 'result' of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word εἰς). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they had already believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins.”
My response is simply this. This misrepresents the use of the word εἰς altogether. The definition of the word itself defies any backward motion and cannot be translated as "because of" the preaching of Jonah, nor does any English translation I know of dare to translate it in such a fashion. No linguistic scholar is going to be this grossly irresponsible. The meaning of the word εἰς pushes the direction of the repentance forward – they repented toward the preaching of Jonah. Here the better rendering of εἰς would be "at the preaching of Jonah" which is perfectly acceptable and this is how it is translated in the more than twenty English translations I have examined, although a few of the paraphrased versions render it as "when Jonah spoke." But, what they all have in common is that NONE of them translate this as "because of the preaching of Jonah." I wonder why that is? If you want this verse to say 'because of' the preaching of Jonah the text would have to be written ὅτι τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ but that is not what he said. He said, εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ. We must construct the translation according to the definition of the words used. We cannot simply assign any definition to the language we want.
Romans 4:20
This is the same as the two previous texts. Here the better rendering of εἰς would be "he did not waver in unbelief" which perfectly agrees with the definition of εἰς and this is how it is translated in most English translations, although a few render it as "through unbelief" which I regard as highly questionable. But, what they all have in common is that NONE of them translate this as "because of unbelief." I wonder why that is?
The final text they offer for those who argue for the casual use is Matthew 3:11where John says, "I baptize you for repentance. εἰς is used here the same way it is used in Acts 2:38 with forward movement and is rendered in most English translations as for or unto but NEVER as "because of repentance." The one translation that missed it altogether is the ISV which renders it "as evidence of repentance." This is not translating, this is interpretation.
Last edited:
