The Translation of “Eis” in Acts 2:38

Question from a Site Viewer
I am writing in regards to your explanation of “eis” in Acts 2:38. This is the same preposition used in Matthew 26:28; Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:3 and 24:47 (in the four oldest Greek manuscripts) and is the same expression “eis aphesin hamartian” meaning “for or with a view to dismissal of sins. If eis means “because of” in Acts 2:38 then it must also in the other verses. Jesus certainly did not shed his blood because we already received remission (dismissal) of our sins before he died and shed his blood for us. Neither did John the Immerser proclaim an immersion of repentance (change of mind) because we already received remission of sins. Nor did Jesus tell His disciples that they were to proclaim repentance because of remission of sins in His name. You need to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. Generally “eis” can be translated “because of” only if another greek word (tis) is present.

Salvation begins at repentance and faith in Jesus Chris but does not stop there. Paul did not leave 99% of converts unbaptized. He baptized some but if many became saved he would have had help as he almost always had traveling companions.

Search on Google under “baptism for forgiveness or remission of sins.” Your argument has been discussed and shown to be weighed and found wanting.

Tim’s Answer
You raise a good question of how one should translate “eis” in Acts 2:38. To answer this question, one must ask the question: What process does one use to determine the meaning to give to a word? One needs a process that is divorced from one’s particular theological bent. Otherwise, Scripture ceases to speak to us because we cause Scripture to mean what we want it to mean. I would argue that one first must develop a standard for determining meaning and then apply that standard consistently throughout the translation of Scripture.

Here is my standard that I attempt to apply. Every word has a field of meaning with a core meaning and more remote meanings relating to that core. I believe one should always take the core meaning of the word and apply it to the text. If that meaning makes sense in the text, then there is a strong argument for accepting that meaning. If that meaning does not make sense in the text, then I am willing to consider other more remote meanings within the field of meaning, going from the most common down to the less common, until I find a meaning that makes sense. I will look at all of the meanings, but my practice is to move towards a more common meaning and away from more remote meanings, whenever possible.

At the same time, I am concerned that the meaning fit the context of the passage and the theology of the writer and secondarily of the greater Scripture. Thus, even as you demonstrated, similar phrases are found elsewhere in the New Testament, including by the same author. These certainly must be examined to see if they shed any light on the meaning in this passage. The weight of context will sometimes lead me to choose a lesser used meaning (from within the field of meaning) over a more common meaning.

And before I begin, if the following appears to look like a mathematical proof, I hope that you will forgive me. I do not intent it to be so, but rather an explanation of what drives me to my interpretation of Acts 2:38. It is my drive to interpret Scripture consistently and my desire to do so with the best effort I can make to understand what the human authors and God originally intended.

Here, we have a Greek word “eis.” This was a widely used Greek preposition (used 1768 times in New Testament), with an origin probably originally stemming from the Greek preposition “en” and shares much in common meaning with that preposition, although there are distinctions between the two in the Greek New Testament. Today, in modern Greek, “en” has disappeared and “eis” has fully taken over its function. The root meaning of “eis” is the concept of “into,” being associated with a place one went into. However, it had developed a field of meaning when used farther afield from its root idea of moving into a place.

If we look at the standard lexicons and grammars, we can determine linguistically its field of meaning. In Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, the standard lexicon for classical Greek, we find the following uses of the word:

  1. Of place (“into,” “to,” less commonly “before,” “upon,” “for”)
  2. Of time (“up to,” “until,” “near,” “for,” “with”)
  3. To express measure or limit (“as far as,” “as much as,” “so far as,” “about,” “by”)
  4. To express relation (“towards,” “in regard to”)
  5. Of an end or limit, including the idea of purpose or object (“in,” “into,” “for,” “to the purpose”)

In Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, the standard lexicon for biblical Greek and early Christian writings, we find the following meanings of the word:

  1. Of place (“into,” “in,” “toward,” “to,” “among,” “near,” “to,” “on,” “toward”)
  2. Of time (“to,” “until,” “for,” “on,” “in,” “for,” “throughout”)
  3. To indicate degree (“to,” “completely,” “fully”)
  4. To indicate the goal, including to show the result or purpose (“unto,” “to,” “against,” “in,” “for,” “into,” “to,” “so that,” “in order to,” “for”)
  5. To denote reference to a person or thing (“for,” “to,” “with respect” or “reference to”)
  6. Some more minor uses.

In Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament; Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, and Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, we find very similar meanings.

This survey allows us to find the field of meaning for the word “eis.” Now, if we look at the probable meaning of the word in this place, we quickly find ourselves sliding down the list. “Forgiveness of sins” is not a place, nor is it time. It is not a measure or degree. It may express relation or purpose. These appear to be our available options.

However, the field of meaning is always developed by a survey of usage of the term. Dr. Nigel Turner, in Dr. Moulton’s Grammar of the New Testament Greek, Vol. III, agrees with Mantey that “eis” in the New Testament “has the Semitic causal sense, “eis” being the Hebrew [lamed].” Page 255. In Hebrew grammar, “lamed” frequently is causative. There are many who take issue with him, but I do not think they provide a convincing case.

Without going through this exhaustively, I will direct your attention to one New Testament text found in the writings of our author here, Luke. Both in Matthew 12:41 and in Luke 11:32, we have the words of Jesus recorded. Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, but Luke uses Greek to record what Jesus said. And he uses “eis” in a causative sense. He quotes Jesus as saying that the people of Nineveh repented “eis” the preaching of Jonah and a greater one than Jonah was now here. I think readers would naturally interpret the passage to be that the inhabitants of Nineveh repented because of the teaching of Jonah. That is, God used Jonah’s preaching as at least an indirect cause to bring about the repentance of Nineveh.

If we try to fit this passage into the field of meaning we find in the standard lexicons and grammars above, we run into difficulties. Preaching is not a place, or time; nor is it a measure or degree. They certainly did not repent with a result or purpose leading to Jonah’s preaching. Rather, it is the opposite; namely, the purpose or result of the preaching (at least from God’s point of view) was to lead them to repentance. And stating that “eis” is used in a relational or reference meaning does not solve the problem. Because, then one asks: “What is the nature of the relationship or how does repentance relate to the preaching?” And this brings us back to the causative sense. Almost anyone reading the passage would conclude that they repented, at least in some causal sense, because of the preaching of Jonah. I find the argument of J. R. Mantey on this point convincing.

Once I reach this conclusion, I am left admitting that, at least for Matthew and Luke, the field of meaning for “eis” includes a causative sense.

Mantey then turns to Matt. 3:11 where John the Baptist stated that he baptized “eis” repentance. Mantey asks the question whether John baptized so that they might repent, or because of repentance. He notes that if it is the former, there is no further Scriptural confirmation of such practice. None of the other passages on baptism state that its purpose is to bring repentance. In Acts 2:38, repentance and baptism are listed as separate matters that “eis” forgiveness of sins.

But Scripture does not simply leave me with this question. Both the gospel writer Mark and the gospel writer Luke comment on this statement by John the Baptist. In both Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, the authors state that John preached a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” In both places, the authors are not quoting John, but rather explaining to us what John was preaching. And, for our purposes, most notably they do not link baptism and repentance with the preposition “eis.” Rather, they place the noun “repentance” in the genitive case. In Greek, there are eight cases of nouns that allows one to determine how the noun fits within the structure of the sentence. Because the noun “repentance” derives from the verb “repent,” it is considered to be a noun of action. In Greek, nouns of action in the genitive may either be translated as a subjective genitive; that is the noun causes the action, or an objective genitive; that is, the noun receives the action. In Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, it is either repentance “causes” the baptism or baptism “causes” the repentance. These are the two choices for interpretation.

Because the grammar does not give a preference to either a subjective or objective usage in this passage, I turn to the context to see which of these meanings is the one most likely that the author intended. When I look at the writings of Luke to see how he sees this relationship, I am left with the stark conclusion that Luke never sees baptism as preceding or driving repentance. He always sees the turn of the person as bringing about the baptism. (See Acts 2:41 – those who received his word were baptized; Acts 8:12 & 13 – when they believed they were baptized; Acts 8:36-38 – if you believe you may be baptized; Acts 9:4-18 – Paul’s conversion and subsequent baptism; Acts 10:47 – Cornelius and those in his house received the Holy Spirit and were baptized; Acts 15:14-15 – Lydia’s heart was first opened and then she was baptized; Acts 16:33-34 – the passage is ambiguous as to whether belief or baptism came first, there is no clear linkage in time; Acts 18:8 – Crispus and his household believed and many of the Corinthians were believing and being baptized; Acts 19:1-5 – those who were already disciples were baptized.

With this context from Luke’s own writing, I am led to choose the subjective genitive meaning over the objective genitive meaning. That is, there is much to support a view that Luke saw the relationship between baptism and repentance as repentance doing the action which then permits the baptism. There is nothing in Luke 3 or elsewhere in Luke’s writings that would support an objective genitive meaning; that is, that baptism caused the repentance.”

I reach the same conclusion with respect to Mark’s intended meaning. I do not expect that Mark had an opposite meaning using the identical phrase in the identical context.

Based upon all of the above, I read both Mark and Luke as stating that John baptized because of repentance. I take their reading of what John said as my instruction for how I should read Matthew 3:11. And because Matthew has elsewhere used “eis” in a causative sense (see Matt. 12:41 discussed above), his usage here is not an anomaly.

Professor Mantey points out that the causative meaning here is also supported by the testimony of Josephus. Josephus was not a Christian, but he does provide us an historical account of that time and his testimony cannot be easily dismissed. He states:

Who (John) was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing (with water) would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.
Antiquities of the Jews, bk 18, ch. 5, sec. 2.

Yet, now having established that the words “baptizo . . . eis ______” should be read as having a causative “because of” meaning in Matthew 3:11, I am not inclined to think that Mark (Mark 1:4) and Luke (Luke 3:3) have switched to a different meaning for the word in a similar phrase involving the same context of John’s baptism. The phrase “baptisma metanoias eis aphesin amartion” (“baptism because of repentance ‘eis’ forgiveness of sins”) found in Mark and Luke is closely linked to the idea “baptizo . . . eis metanoian” found in Matthew both in its grammatical structure and in its context. The only difference is that in Matthew the baptism is expressed as a verbal idea “I baptize” and the Mark and Luke passages carry the substantive idea “repentance ‘eis’ forgiveness of sins.” In each case, there is an “eis” prepositional clause modifying either a verb or a verbal noun in the context of explaining the point of John’s baptism. If I see repentance as causing baptism, then should I not also see forgiveness of sins as causing repentance? This is what Acts 13:38-43 seems to show; that the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins leads people to repentance.

And I challenge those who would interpret Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 as baptism causing forgiveness of sins to apply the same meaning to Matthew 3:11. I do not know of any evangelicals who would support a view that baptism causes repentance. Such an interpretation is not required by the context or grammar and turns the entire context of Scripture on its head. Always, when the passage indicates the relationship, repentance precedes baptism in Scripture. If baptism does not cause repentance, then neither should it be seen as causing the forgiveness of sins. One should be consistent, given the fact that these passages use similar grammar in baptism/repentance contexts.

It is for this reason I side with Dr. Mantey in his view of these passages. I understand the counter-argument that a causative “eis” is not accepted by all grammarians, and such argument carries a great deal of weight for me. But the above reasoning is most compelling to me.

Now, when I turn to Acts 2:38, with the above background, you can understand why I interpret this passage “because of.” Luke, quoting Peter, is the one who recorded this in the Greek. He is the one who interpreted John the Baptist’s similar usage as being causative. He himself uses the a closely similar phrase in Luke 3:3 which I believe he intends us to understand in a causative light. I see no reason not to see a consistency in meaning between this passage, Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:4, and Luke 3:3. I believe “because of” is the best interpretation of Acts 2:38.

I understand your argument from Matthew 26:28. I certainly would agree with you that in that passage a purpose or relational reading is most preferred. And reading a similar prepositional phrase the same in the various places it appears is desirable. But for me, this would require me to read the larger idea “let each of you be baptized . . . eis_____” inconsistently. I would rather read the small phrase inconsistently than the larger, since the larger has more points in common to the specific context of the Acts 2:38 passage. (In the broad scheme two parallel passages help interpret each other. Two identical words in dissimilar passages are much less helpful in interpreting each other. The greater the points in common, the more likely the passages are to shed critical light on one another.) Each of the baptism passages share not only a similar grammar, but a shared context of baptism and repentance. It is for this reason that I read each of these baptism passages as “because of.”

You list Luke 24:47 as being an example where “eis” is linked to the forgiveness of sins. You have good company in this observation. This is the reading preferred by the 4th edition of the United Bible Society (UBS) translators. However, there is considerable disagreement on whether “eis” or “kai” should be read here, as there are manuscripts that support both readings. The 3rd edition of the UBS text gave the “eis” reading a “D” rating, meaning that it was highly doubtful. I notice that the 4th edition has upgraded this to a “B” rating meaning that it is almost certain. However, the apparatus cites no more support for this view than what existed in the 3rd edition. The rating is a function of the translator’s judgment and that judgment the translators explain so we can draw our own conclusion. What drives the translators to the “eis” is their reliance on the “older” documents and their view that an editor would likely change “eis” to “kai” because there is a second “eis” only three words later. See Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pg. 188. I do not accept “eis” as being the best reading of Luke 24:47. The “eis” reading is supported by a Greek document from the early 3rd century, two Greek documents from the fourth century, a Syriac version from the fifth century, two Coptic texts from the 3rd century, and a Slavic text from the ninth century. This reading was not widespread (from Syria to Egypt), and was sparse, not supported by any of the early church fathers, except for possibly the Diatesseron (there are special problems involving the Diatesseron as support for any one position).

In contrast, the overwhelming number of early documents support a “kai” (and) reading here. It matches the early date of “eis” because Cyprian, who died in 258 A.D., cites the passage as “kai.” There also is a 3rd/4th century Syriac document (much earlier than the “eis” reading) with “kai.” There is a 4th century Italian manuscript with “kai,” along with the Vulgate’s reading of “kai.” There are four Greek texts from the 5th century, four Italian texts from the 5th century, a 5th century Armenian document, a 5th/6th century Ethiopic document, and a 5th century Georgian document. Further, the “kai” usage is supported by a 4th century church father (Hilary), and by Augustine. The exceeding early breadth of the “kai” reading (from Ethiopia to Georgia and from Italy to Syria) and its support by the early church, a support approximately as early as the earliest document supporting “eis” (both in the early to mid 3rd century), and the relative paucity of documents supporting “eis,” leads me to conclude that “kai” is the preferred reading.

Further, I think it is more likely that a copier would change this passage to be consistent with Matt. 26:28 than that one would change the passage to read “kai” for sake of eliminating an “eis.”

Having given you a very lengthy explanation for your simple observation, I am not willing to state dogmatically that “because of” is right. I believe it to be the best given the reasons set forth above, but good people with good arguments have differed on this interpretation. And I respect anyone’s right to read this passage as a reference passage, as grammarians have differed. I do not think a purpose reading is permitted without adopting a similar reading for Matt. 3:11. And such a reading of Matt. 3:11 would be contrary to the overwhelming weight of Scripture.

In any event, if you read more of the website, you will find that the view behind almost everything written therein is a focus on Jesus. Jesus is sufficient. We cannot add anything to Jesus without undoing the whole work of God. We cannot add circumcision. We cannot add the law. We cannot add the Lord’s table. We cannot add baptism. Either Christ saves, or we are not saved. This is the teaching of Scripture (See the book of Galatians, and especially chapter 5). Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. Water baptism is, at a minimum, a picture of the baptism we experience when we come to Christ through faith. See Romans 6. It may be more. But it is not the basis of our repentance, nor of our forgiveness of sins. He is that to us. As Scripture says, He now commands us to repent (Acts 17:30) and in Him we have forgiveness of sins (Col. 1:14; 2:11-13).

May the Lord Jesus bless you as you seek to walk with Him, serving all in love.

a pilgrim,



Following is an email received from one of our readers. The reader quotes parts of the article and then responds. Afterward, Tim responds. Keep reading for more.

Tim says: 

I believe one should always take the core meaning of the word and apply it to the text. If that meaning makes sense in the text, then there is a strong argument for accepting that meaning.

Reader response:

At the same time, I am concerned that the meaning fit the context of the passage and the theology of the writer and secondarily of the greater Scripture.

Surely you would not claim that just because sense can be made of the remote meaning, that it should then be preferred. What if we could find an interpretation that allowed us to retain the core meaning and in no way contradict the theology of the writer. Would that not be preferred?

Tim says: 

Because, then one asks: “What is the nature of the relationship or how does repentance relate to the preaching?”

Reader response:

No disagreement here that a case for causal “eis” can be made in Matt. 12:41. To answer your question, I would think that we could say that they repented in order to avoid the destruction that Jonah’s message warned them of. They turned from their wicked ways and turned toward the message (preaching) that Jonah delivered to them. I don’t claim that it is the best answer, but I do think it to be a reasonable one.

There may be an error in your logic here. You use the lexicon to prove that “eis” cannot take on one of its common meanings in this verse. However, you also argue that the field of meaning is not dependent on the lexicon. If the lexicon dictates usage, then there is no causal “eis”. If, however, the lexicon does not dictate usage then you cannot exclude an irregular application of one of the common meanings. To put it simply, you can’t have it both ways.

Tim says: 

Mantey then turns to Matt. 3:11 where John the Baptist stated that he baptized “eis” repentance.

Reader response:

It would seem that most scholars consider that “eis” always has a forward looking concept, never a backward looking one. The words “into,” “to,” and “unto” (the most common translations of eis) carry that idea. I think “into” could be a good translation here. Yes, the people being baptized had already repented, but it was not a one-time-done-deal. They were beginning a life guided by repentance, not only continuing on the new road (“fruits of repentance”) but also repenting anew when called for. They were baptized into a repentant form of life. This does not contradict any other teaching, and allows us to preserve the most common meaning, rather than reach for the rarest one.

Tim says: 

Once I reach this conclusion, I am left admitting that, at least for Matthew and Luke, the field of meaning for “eis” includes a causative sense.

Reader response:

Yes, and the case is a weak one, more or less by definition. That Matthew may have used the verb “baptize” one time with a rare causal use of “eis” can hardly be considered proof of consistent usage. Mantey said that the causal usage of “eis” was “infrequent and rare.” You’ve offered nothing thus far to contradict that.

Tim says: 

Yet, now, having established that this phrase “baptisma eis _____” should be read as having a causative (“because of”) meaning in Matt. 3:11

Reader response:

Not so fast. You have swapped the verb “baptize” for the noun “baptism.” You may reply that this is a technicality, but you’re the one who likened your efforts here to a “mathematical proof.” If you’re going to make statements like that, then you cannot complain when you are held to a rigorous standard. Remember, causal “eis” is not common. Establishing a consistent pattern of such usage, in any context, is an extremely high hurdle to get over. I would argue that it can’t be done at all without contradicting Mantey’s admission that it is “infrequent and rare.” It certainly doesn’t seem reasonable to consider the case made on the strength of 2 verses.

Tim says: 

I am not inclined to think that Mark (Mark 1:4) and Luke (Luke 3:3) have switched to a different meaning for the word in a similar phrase involving the same context of John’s baptism.

Reader response:

First, you’ve yet to demonstrate that Mark has ever used “eis” in a causal sense, so speaking of him “switching” to a different meaning doesn’t make any sense. In Luke’s case, you have cited a single example. If anything, that would be when Luke “switched to a different meaning.”

Second, you make it sound like the various meanings are on an equal footing. That’s not remotely accurate. Your statement reads a bit differently if you replace “a different meaning” with “the core meaning.”

Third, the phrases are not nearly as similar as you say they are. Matthew used the verb “baptize” in his statement. Mark and Luke used the noun “baptism.” Matthew used “repentance” in the accusative case as the direct object of “eis.” Mark and Luke used “repentance” in the genitive with the noun “baptism.” Mark and Luke have “forgiveness of sins” as the object of “eis,” not “repentance.” Different subject–nouns and verbs are obviously different. Different objects–”repentance” is not the same as “forgiveness of sins.”

Fourth, I am reminded of the old saying, “That which proves too much proves nothing.” By your reasoning, it would be impossible for any of these gospel authors ever to tell us what John’s baptism was “for” (in a purposive sense).

Fifth, I understand that some scholars now believe that Mark may precede Matthew. If that is so, then your argument here falls apart.

Tim says: 

And I challenge those who would interpret Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 as baptism causing forgiveness of sins to apply the same meaning to Matthew 3:11. I do not know of any evangelicals who would support a view that baptism causes repentance.

Reader response:

Done. See above. Remember, too, that there was no greater prophet than John (Luke 7:28), that John’s baptism was from heaven (Luke 11:28), that John’s baptism was cited as marking the time when the apostle’s ministry began (Acts 1:22), and Peter preached to Cornelius that “you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed.” (Acts 10:37). John’s baptism was of great significance in the Scriptures.

With that in mind, I don’t find it at all difficult to see that John’s baptism had a lasting impact on those who were baptized. It would be strange indeed for none of the gospel writers ever to tell us what this heaven sent baptism was “for.”

Speaking of Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, you write:

Tim says: 

“. . . they do not link baptism and repentance with the preposition “eis.”

And then:

The interpretation of “baptism ‘eis’ repentance” . . . 

Reader response:

Neither Mark nor Luke ever used this phrase. You said so yourself. The fact is that Matthew never did either.

Tim says: 

In Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, it is either repentance “causes” the baptism or baptism “causes” the repentance.

Reader response:

This is all very nice, but none of it has anything to do with “eis.”

Tim says: 

The interpretation of “baptism “‘eis’ repentance” as being causative by both Mark and Luke takes away . . . 

Reader response:

Since neither Mark nor Luke used the phrase “baptism ‘eis’ repentance,” your conclusion is entirely unsupported.

Tim says: 

And reading a similar prepositional phrase the same in the various places it appears is desirable. But for me, this would require me to read the larger phrase “baptisma eis ______” inconsistently . . .

Reader response:

The “larger phrase” doesn’t even exist in Matthew. As for the prepositional phrase in Matt. 26:28 being “similar” – didn’t you mean to say “identical?”

In your analysis of Matt. 12:41, you considered the object of “eis” to be crucial in determining its meaning. Does that standard still apply? If so, then you should be giving greater weight to other verses with *identical* prepositional phrases (not just similar). If not, then you should not apply it to Matt. 12:41.

Tim says: 

Each of the baptism passages share not only a similar grammar, but a shared context of baptism and repentance. It is for this reason that I read each of these baptism passages as “because of.”

Reader response:

The grammar is not really as similar as you say it is. Shared context, sure. Either way, surely it cannot be the case that once one writer has addressed a topic, no other writer can address the same topic in order to make a different point. We should be especially cautious when assigning an atypical usage.

Tim’s Response to the Above: 

Thank you for your critique of the article.  As I stated in my article, I would not strongly oppose a view of “eis” being viewed in the Acts 2:38 passage as being “in relation to.”  But I continue to believe that a causative “eis” meaning is the best interpretation for the reasons I stated.  And I do not think a purpose “eis” is appropriate. 

All lexicons are observations, not rules.  Lexicographers are not infallible and I happen to believe that Dr. Mantey who co-authored the fairly standard, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, is right to challenge the range of meaning for “eis” on this issue.  He cites Romans 4:20, Matthew 3:11; Mark 2:18 (the cite here is not right but I am not sure what verse he had in mind); Romans 11:32, and Titus 3:14 as other passages where “eis” has a causal meaning.  However, simply because someone has demonstrated, and I think convincingly, that there is a causal use of “eis” in Biblical literature, does not mean that other non-lexical uses of the word are appropriate.  Any use of the word, or any ancient word, needs to be supported by sound lexical analysis.  I believe Dr. Mantey has done this for “eis” in his argument.  Further, Dr. Mantey is not alone.  Dr. Nigel Turner, in Dr. Moulton’s Grammar of the New Testament Greek, Vol. III, states that “eis” “has the Semitic causal sense, ‘eis” being the Hebrew [lamed].”  See page 255.  If you know Hebrew grammar, “lamed” frequently is causative.  Dr. Turner cites Zerwick as additional support.  Dr. Turner argues fairly convincingly to me that Colossians 1:16 in Paul’s use of “eis” should be understood as stating that Christ is “the efficient and the final cause” because creation is “eis auton” “caused by Him.”  See page 256.  Because Paul maintains the distinction between “en” and “eis,” it would be an anomaly for Paul to have the meaning that creation is “in Him.” 

You state that most scholars would state that “eis” always has a forward meaning.  I am not sure what scholars you are referencing.  Certainly, this cannot be the meaning in 2 Timothy 1:11 where Paul is looking back at his appointment.  Nor is there a forward meaning in the retrospective of Abraham’s life in Hebrews 11:9.  There does not seem to a forward meaning in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 dealing with the Antichrist having set himself up in the temple of God.  The problem we have is that the basic idea of “eis” began as “en s” stemming from the preposition “en.”  “Eis” has grown over the years to encompass a wider and wider range of meanings. 

As for your proposal to see repentance of the forgiveness of sins as a repetitive idea, I was not sure if you were getting that from your understanding of “eis” or from some other inherent idea of “repentance” or “forgiveness of sins.”  I do not see John the Baptist preaching a message of repetitive repentance.  Would you see Luke 3:3 as the idea of a single baptism of a repetitive repentance for a repetitive forgiveness of sins?  I am not sure that I find any repetitive meaning for the word “repentance,” either in its verbal form or in its noun form in the New Testament.  The word means to “change one’s mind.”  At least inherently it does not carry the idea of continuing to change ones mind or repetitively changing ones mind.  Perhaps one can make the argument from lexical usage that notwithstanding this it should be so read in some passages.  I simply have not seen that argument made.

I agree with you that Matthew uses the verb while Mark and Luke use the noun.  This is partly because Matthew records John’s words while Mark and Luke explain John’s baptism.  I do not think they are in disagreement about what they said.  Whether it is John directly stating that he baptizes “eis” repentance or whether it is Mark and Luke telling us that he preached a baptism of repentance “eis” forgiveness of sins, there is a shared context of what John’s baptism was about.  Further, the word we are looking at is “eis” and I find no grammatical reason to believe that “eis” means one thing after a verb and another thing after a noun.

I do not accept any view that Mark preceded Matthew.  Ireneus, who was a disciple of Polycarp who himself was a friend of John the Apostle, tells us that Matthew was written first and Mark followed.  The argument to the contrary is largely based on the lengthened forms of Matthew and Luke over Mark, and the two source hypothesis.  Such modern theories are not of the same weight in my view as the testimony of the earliest church who had a connection back to the apostles and had every reason to know who wrote what book first. 

My use of the term “baptism ‘eis’ repentance” was not intended to be a quote of any passage.  I apologize if that was unclear.  I put “eis” in separate quotes within the quoted phrase to show that this was not a direct quote of any passage.  I was attempting to make the point that I find both Mark and Luke to be causative with respect to the relationship between repentance and baptism.

As for each of the passages sharing a grammar, the Mark, Luke and Acts passages all share the grammar of a noun followed by “eis” followed by “forgiveness of sins.”  I see this as similar grammar.  The Mark and Luke passages explain what John the Baptist was doing, something John tells us directly in Matthew, using another “eis” phrase to address the same subject that Mark and Luke addressed.  

You state that it would be strange if none of the gospel writers told us what John’s baptism was for.  I find that purpose in John 1:31 where John states that his baptism was so that Jesus might be revealed to Israel. 

Thanks for taking the time to provide your thoughts.  While I may not agree with your conclusions, I respect your willingness to share your views and to open them up to the give and take of constructive dialogue. 

May the Lord Jesus and His Spirit guide you into the riches of His life and love.

51 thoughts on “The Translation of “Eis” in Acts 2:38”

  1. I’ve lost track of the number of times that a Baptist or evangelical has told me that Acts 2:38 was mistranslated; that the “for” in that passage of God’s Holy Word should be removed and replaced with “because of”.

    It doesn’t matter to them that every English translation of the Bible translates this word in Acts 2:38 as “for” or “into” and never “because of”, because these Christians know in their hearts that God would never, ever say that baptism has anything to do with the forgiveness of sins.

    Below is an excellent article by Lutheran pastor, Matt Richards on this subject:

    1. Hi Everyone,

      I was just reading over this article and wanted to add another viewpoint (see number 4 below) in addition to Tim’s and the many here who passionately disagree. : )



      From the NET Study Bible, here’s a summary from Wallace’s Greek Grammar (pages 369–71) on four of the main ways one can take this verse:

      (1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and εἰς has the meaning of “for” or “unto.” Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works—an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38–39, 48; 15:11; 16:30–31; 20:21; 26:18).

      (2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41).

      (3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized …” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling εἰς, but its subtlety and awkwardness count against it.

      (4) Finally, 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. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15–16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. One must look in other places for a theological analysis.

  2. Greetings.
    I have a rather large collection of Bibles and have never, ever, ever seen the “for” in Acts 2:38 translated in such a way as to imply “because of”. You need to open your eyes to the truth and not blindly follow the path of the “faith only” sect. If you need more proof about how “eis” should be translated look up different Bibles and you will find some translate it even more direct. I found in “God’s Word” (1995) eis translated, “(so that) your sins may be forgiven” and in “The New Testament in Modern English” (1958) it is written “(so that) you may have your sins forgiven”, also in “The Bible: An American Translation” (1931) it states “(in order to) have your sins forgiven”. I am sure there are others but this seems to be enough. I strongly believe that if “eis” means “because of” it would say that on such an important scripture. Baptism is an expression of faith, such as a knocking on a door is a request to enter without the effort to knock the door will never open.

    1. I explained in some detail in the article why I believe “so that” is not an accurate translation of “eis” in Acts 2:38. You are free to disagree. However, the goal of translation is to convey the author’s meaning. Most translators of this verse render “eis” as “for.” But this does not resolve the interpretive problem. The English “for” has 27 meanings according to my Webster’s unabridged dictionary, including “because of” (no. 23) and “in order” (no. 26). As explained, we know that the Greek “eis” also can carry either meaning. So the fact that a few translators rendered the word as “so that” does not resolve the issue. Given that both the Greek word “eis” and the English word “for” share meanings ranging from “because of” to “so that,” our job as interpreters is to consider the context and the author and try to determine what the author intended. There is nothing in the context or in Luke’s other writings that would indicate that Luke held the view that baptism was necessary for the remission of sins. So I do not want to put a meaning into the passage that Luke did not intend. Accordingly, I do not think that a “so that” meaning is best for the passage.

      1. Greetings.
        Tim, lets read the verse in question translated “because of”. “Peter replied, “”Let all of you repent and be baptized because of the forgiveness of your sins.”” This translation would imply that those Jews who were “pricked in the heart” by guilt were forgiven before they repented or were baptized. Surely you can see that this can not be. Also, by your logic it would be impossible to translate any part of the Bible, since every word has many usages. Even simple words like “for” has “27” meanings. Neither one of us are Greek scholars, but it seems to me that at least one translation would use “because of” in Acts 2:38. I think the lack of this is strong proof that “because of” is the wrong meaning. I remember Bill Clinton trying to defend a false statement he made under oath by saying, “it depends on what your definition of “is” is.” You are caught up in the faith alone group and any verse that states otherwise must be explained away, even if it is “clear as day.”

        1. Paul preached the forgiveness of sins to non-believers. This is the message of the gospel. Because Christ has forgiven sins, we now need to repent and follow Him. Is Acts 2:38 saying more than this?

          1. Greetings.
            If Christ “has” forgiven our sins, why do we “need” to repent and follow Him?

          2. Important, remember that Peter was speaking with Jews, they had been studying the OT for some 1,500 years. Its interesting that Acts 2:21 Peter tells them everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved (quoting from the book of Joel). He didnt say everyone who calls on the Lord shall be saved, he said anyone who calls on the NAME of the Lord shall be saved. It’s interesting that later on in Acts 2:37, the Jews ask “what shall we do?” They didnt ask because they weren’t paying attantion, they were asking because any time they called on the name of the Lord they offered up a sacrifice. What they were asking Peter is “How do we call on the name of the Lord” Peter responded Repent & be Baptized calling on the name of the Lord.

    2. With this view you have a sincere dilemma: How do you fit your argument in with Matt. 12:41 and Matt. 3:11? “At” or “because of” is the only thing that works grammatically in these verses. If we admit that, then we have to allow both phrases as an option for Acts 2:38.

  3. Greetings.
    Try this. Go to any adult and say “relax and lay down for the settling of your nerves and you will feel much better.” Now ask them why they should lay down and relax. I doubt very much that they will say it is “because” they feel much better. All I did was take out the Bible words “repent”, “baptized” and “Holy Spirit” and replaced them we secular words. It would take a rather long essay to convince someone that they should lay down and relax because they feel much better. Does it not concern you that of the over fifty translations of the New Testament in English “not one” of them used what you think it should be (because of) and that a number translate “for” even more direct (so that) and (in order to). You should think hard about what you are saying, people are listening. Repentance and baptism are like the knocking on a door, showing your desire for it to be opened. Standing at the door and refusing to knock because you think your faith is enough is just stubborn.

  4. Greetings.
    I looked up the Greek word for “because of” it is “dia” and is used in 1st Timothy 5:23 when Paul tells Timothy to stop only drinking water and drink a little wine “because of” him stomach problems. If Acts 2:38 really means “because of” why wouldn’t the author just use “dia” and but done with it. This is the reason no Bible translations would ever insert “because of” the forgiveness of sins. It would just be wrong. Stop basing your faith on general statements and accept the entire Bible, salvation is about have a obeying faith. We may disagree about what is to be obeyed but we should be able to see that “faith alone” is not true. There are just to many examples of God expecting man to “do” something to accept the freely given grace of God. God gave the Jews manna in the desert but He did not collect it or put it in their mouths that was up to them. Collecting or eating the manna was no more or less a work then repentance, baptism or confessing etc. Think about it.

    1. David, Look a little closer at other translations of the verse in Timothy and many translate dia as “for” not “because of” Did Jesus die “because of” our sins or for our sins? Every translation I could find translates “dia” (Septuagint) Isaiah 53:5 as “for.” Isa 53:5

      But He was pierced through for our transgressions
      He was crushed for our iniquities;
      The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
      And by His scourging we are healed.

    2. dia is used in the Septuagint for Isaiah 53:5 and most translations render it as for. How would this be a better word?

      Isaiah 53:5Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)

      5 And he is pierced” for” our transgressions, Bruised “for” our iniquities, The chastisement of our peace [is] on him, And by his bruise there is healing to us.

      1. Greetings.
        I am not sure what to make of your comments but lets remember that the whole point of this topic is can “eis” be translated as “because of” and if so does that mean Christians are baptized “because” they already have forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. I am not a Greek scholar, nor do I need to be one, any one who studies the Bible can see that the “for” in Acts 2:38 means “so that” your sins will be forgiven. This is easy to see from the context of both the earlier and later verses. This is why NOT ONE of the over 50 translations of the New Testament use “because of” and at least 15 use “so that” or “in order to” instead of “for”. Let me be clear. using “for” is perfectly correct, but claiming “for” (continued)

        1. means “because of” is wrong. My bringing up “dia” is to show that IF Luke wanted the reader to know that we are to be baptized “because of” our already forgiven sins, he could have used “dia” which is very clear in the Greek as meaning “because of”. This is the REASON that scholars who translate from the original Greek don’t use “because of”. Also, “dia” is used many times in the Greek New Testament, why would you pick a word originally written in Hebrew and not Greek to prove your point. Isn’t translation tricky enough without bringing up a third language. Also, you asked me to look closer at other translations of 1st Timothy 5:23, I used YOUR Young’s Literal, it translated “dia” as “because of” also. I look forward to your reply.

          1. You said:
            ” why would you pick a word originally written in Hebrew and not Greek to prove your point. Isn’t translation tricky enough without bringing up a third language”.

            The Septuagint was translated by Jewish Scholars> I think they knew their language well enough to translate it accurate.. The same way Luke translated what the Jewish Messiah and Jewish Apostles apostles said into Greek.

        2. Since you want use only YLT version to justify your translation how do you explain this use of eis?

          Mat 12:41

          “The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.

          1. Greetings Joel.
            No one is debating who translated the Septuagint, the question is why would you pick a verse originally written in Hebrew to prove a point about the meaning of a Greek word when the New Testament is full of examples of “dia”, some even written by Luke himself. If “dia” is not the best word to use for “because of” what is? It definitively is not “eis” since not one of the over 50 translations of the Bible use “because of” in Acts 2:38. So I now have 2 questions for you, why Isaiah 53:5 and why the lack of even one version of the Bible using “because of”? If it is so clear that Peter meant “because of” why will not even one translation use it, I think you know the answer. I am not sure how to address your comment about (cont.)

          2. my wanting to only “use the YLT version to justify” my translation. First, I do not use the YLT or even own one, secondly it is you who first used the YLT in your post from April 7, 4:18pm when you used it for your Isaiah 53:5 comment. My use of the YLT was in reply to your post on the article “Baptism and Salvation” from April 11, 7:26pm. Look up these comments and you will see my point. But back to the original question, did Luke mean “because of” in Acts 2:38? I suggest you look up sites like Bible Hub or Bible Gateway and bring up all the versions of Acts 2:38. You will find many versions that state “in order to” or “so that your sins” WILL be forgiven but you will most definitely
            not see “because of”. I look forward to your reply.

          3. “The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented(changed their minds) to the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.”

            They changed their minds from accepting wickedness as being ok to/into(eis) what Jonah was preaching, which was that wickedness was not OK.

            I’m not saying that the above interpretation is correct, I’m only pointing out that it makes sense to be. More sense than interpreting eis as meaning because of in Acts 2:38 anyhow.

  5. Greetings.
    Tim, your very long essay on why the “for” in Acts 2:38 should read “because of” is a great example of why so many non-believers mock Christians. You have a mind set that baptism and repentance can not be part of the plan of salvation, but when confronted with a clear example of the opposite, extreme measures must be taken to explain away the issue. isn’t it possible that your belief that “trusting in Jesus” as a definitive statement is false. This would explain the need for these unbelievably long and confusing discourses about such clear passages as Acts 2:38. Repentance and baptism is not a work worthy of bragging about just a answer to God of a clear conscience, nothing more.

  6. Many translations render eis as you claim. But as I pointed out, not all!. Using the Old Testament is certainly a valid to prove a point. Consider all the verses used by the Apostles and Jesus himself to explain New Testament Doctrine. You must be familiar with the verse from Timothy penned before the New Testament was canonized. ALL SCRIPTURE refers to the OLD TESTAMENT
    2 Timothy 3:16

    16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, It is easy to see that the example given by Paul concerning Abraham being saved by Faith not by works(ex. circumcision) relates the same way to faith and baptism. One preposition (eis) can not nullify it.

  7. David, To use your logic about using the word dia as a better preposition. Why not not use a verb instead of merely a preposition, since as you claim it is such an essential doctrine to salvation? Why not use the Greek ” to obtain ” or “gain” or “receive ‘salvation. That would leave no doubt. Notice John says nothing about Baptism but does use the word receive in connection with faith as an essential to becoming saved. (ex. a son of God)
    John 1:12New King James Version (NKJV)

    12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who BELIEVE(FAITH) in His name: . Notice the use of verbs to enforce his point. Faith is a verb not a preposition.

  8. There are several verses which taken together seem to imply a causal eis understanding of Acts 2:38. First, in Acts 2:21 Peter says “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” The interpretation of this sentence is given in Romans 10:8-13 in which all that is necessary for salvation is confession with the mouth and believing in the heart. These two things are closely related, see Ps. 116:10a & Mt 12:34b. Second, in Acts 10:43 Peter says that trustingly believing in Christ is sufficient for remission of sins. In verses 44-48 Peter’s hearers receive the Holy Spirit before being baptized. These verses seem to me to be more consistent with a causal eis interpretation of Acts 2:38 than a purposive eis interpretation.

  9. “Wanted for robbery: Jesse James.” Is Mr. James wanted in order to commit robbery (purposive), or because he has commited robbery (causative)?

    …was that too “unbelievably long and complicated”? 🙂

  10. I really appreciate the spirit by which you arrive at your conclusion. I am struggling with your conclusion on Matthew 26. When discussing Matthew 26 you mentioned:
    ” I would rather read the small phrase inconsistently than the larger, since the larger has more points in common to the specific context of the Acts 2:38 passage.” I take this to mean you are ok with translating EIS differently in these two passages but still accept the “because of” translation for Acts 2:38. Then you mention: “And I challenge those who would interpret Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 as baptism causing forgiveness of sins to apply the same meaning to Matthew 3:11”. Is it ok to use a different translation in some instances but not in others? Why?

  11. Another question: If we interpret Acts 2:38 as “Repent and Be Baptized (because of) the forgiveness of sins” we must agree that baptism is not required for the forgiveness of sins. By that logic, repentance is not required for the forgiveness of sins also. We are placing forgiveness of sins before both repentance and baptism. This would seem to contradict Acts 3:19 which uses the greek work TIPOS (not EIS) to be translated “for” or “so that”. How can we reconcile this contradiction that Acts 3:19 seems to be clearly stating that repentance is required for forgiveness but translating Acts 2:38 as “because of” says that repentance is not required for forgiveness of sins? The bible cannot contradict itself.

  12. We need only look at the plain meaning of the text. If you have to write 6000 words to address this simple issue something is wrong.
    The Scripture states REPENT and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. Are we to believe we repent BECAUSE our sins our forgiven? That is nonsense. That would mean we need not repent. The overly strained misinterpretation of this Scripture due to bias and predisposition is truly alarming.

  13. Talking about a multitude of words. Interesting that the word baptize is used 6 X. baptism 22X , baptizing 7X in the New Testament. The word faith 245 X believe about 130X believed 70x Yet baptism and faith/belief are put on equal levels for salvation based on one small preposition “for”.

    1. Joel,
      I do not think the amount of times a word is used determines its importance, else you would find many words to be more important than faith or Jesus, etc. I think baptism holding an equal place of importance with belief, repentance, and confession has more to do with 4 very strong commandments which tie baptism to becoming disciples, being saved, and the forgiveness of sins. A couple of references by Paul that baptism is how we put on Christ, and the point at which we are united into His death and resurrection. And of course the fact that after Christ commanded baptism in His name, there isn’t a single example in the Bible of anyone converting without being baptized. What troubles me is why any follower of Jesus would ignore His…

      1. Faith is mentioned more is that it’s the sine qua non of salvation; no one will be induced to do any of the other things God requires in order Call Upon His Name if they don’t first believe. Acts 2:21 22:16, and Romans 10:13 are the only times “calling on the name of the Lord” is mentioned. If Acts 2:21 REALLY meant just “ask God for forgiveness,” those pricked in their hearts in 38 wouldn’t have had to do anything; they already showed faith! Read Acts 22:16 and see the connection to…

  14. Joel,

    Going by a word count is faulty biblical exegesis. Did you know that in the gospels, Jesus never ONCE said the word grace? Not one time (go ahead, and go to to confirm if you must, but it is true). He did use the word disciple over 100 times. So does that mean that discipleship is more important than grace? Does that mean that grace is not important?

    baptism is the final step in the conversion process. Look at the following:
    Romans 10:9-13 says believing and confessing save you. 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism saves you. Mark 16:16 says belief and baptism save you. So, the question becomes which is it? Again, it’s not an “either/or” dilemma, it’s a “both/and” answer.
    Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 say…

  15. Maybe I missed it somewhere in the enormously long response on how eis could mean “because of” but…. am I the only one who noticed that Peter said ” and YOU WILL RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit”? The Greek word used here is lēmpsesthe (2983).

    1. Apparently, some things indeed WERE in their FUTURE upon repentance & baptism.

      “So, I already got this salvation thing, but where do I sign up for that Holy Spirit thing!!!!”

  16. “In Greek, there are eight cases of nouns that allows one to determine how the noun fits within the structure of the sentence. ”
    Is there anyone who can cite a source for this statement? Thanks.

  17. My thought is that forgiveness of sins was being proclaimed by John as a promise of the Kingdom of God (“I will be your God and you will be my people. I will remember your sins and transgressions no more.” -Jer 31:34, which figures so prominently in NT theology that it’s repeated twice in…

  18. No question. I am out-schooled by several of you. Textual variants. Multiple definitions. Multiple viewpoints relying on denominational indoctrination. I’m pooped!

    When all is aid and done, I’m stuck with that diagram of the man with his head half-way stuck in the lion’s head! It would appear to me the most likely expression is repent and be baptized… ‘into’ or “unto” salvation (in Christ).

  19. “Just as exegesis is the foundation for our theology, so theology must inform and guide our exegesis.” (Mark Strauss, 2011).

    Tim, you did a superb job of explaining how the theology of Luke/Acts does not allow for adding works to what it takes to get saved.” God Bless Brother!

    1. Believe, repent, confess are active mandates. Baptism is passive. It is the work of God (Col 2:12; Titus 3:5). None of them are works of merit as in the Law of Moses – which is what Paul objects to in his letters. Baptism is obedience of faith (Rom 1:5). The context of Acts 2:38 (2:36-41) shows clearly what eis means in 2:38, see especially 40-41. That a word might have an obscure questionable definition, does not entitle one to assign that meaning arbitrarily. One must assign its most likely meaning in context. One does not need Acts 2:38 to know the role assigned to baptism (see Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; 12:13; Gal 3:26-27; Eph 5:26; Col 2:12; 1 Pt 3:21, etc). Blessings.

    1. To anyone,
      Hi, I am not a scholar, but why doesn’t anyone just look at other scriptures to show salvation is by faith.
      You can google the location, but Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel, and he also says that it is the gospel that saves 1 Cor 15:2. In Acts 10:44, Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before being baptized. In Acts 16:31, salvation is by faith and in Titus3:5, it is the Living Water who washes us, AKA the Holy Spirit. Physical, earthly water baptism is a symbol of what the Holy Spirit does inside us to birth our spirit into existence. Flesh gives birth to flesh. Spirit gives birth to spirit. Physical baptism is like an archetype of the actual Spirit sourced baptism that save us 1 Peter 3:21. We are born again when our spirit is born within us through the Living Water, who is the Holy Spirit (reference John 7:38-39).
      Knowing the scriptures above, and using bible to interpret bible, it is safe to say that people were not baptized ‘in order to’ have their sins forgiven.
      Also, the verse,”My people are destroyed ‘for’ lack of knowledge,” shows that in the English language, the word ‘for’ can be used as “because of” and not “in order to have”.
      Like mentioned earlier, I am not a scholar (and the message written is for all willing to read it) but I feel that focusing on a word and arguing over it is a distraction. There are many scriptures in the bible. Let’s not forget to use them as well to support our stance that physical water baptism is symbolic of what the Holy Spirit does. The reason it is important to get it right though is if even an angel preaches another gospel, let it be accused Gal 1:6-9. It is the gospel that saves, not water baptism. Baptism is important, but it is not needed for salvation.

      1. I think if you look at other articles on this site you’ll see we agree exactly with what you’re saying. But people use this verse to support that baptism is a requirement for salvation. This article is for them, to dispel that argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Characters: 0/1000