Baptism in Acts 2:38 - Responding to critics

[Michael V. Frazier]

The following text was taken from Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? A Critical Analysis of the Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration (1995), by E. Calvin Beisner. Edited and transcribed to html by Joanne Ruhland/1997 (www.rickross.com/reference/icc/ICC122.html).
________________

This is one of the favorite verses of those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation. They point out simply that it says that we must be "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," and since remission of sins is necessary for salvation, baptism is therefore necessary for salvation.

A careful study of the Greek grammar at this point shows that it is repentance, not baptism, which is "for the remission of sins." The Greek text reads (translated):

You (plural) repent and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (the) remission of the sins of you.

This makes it clear that "remission of your [plural] sins" is the result of "you [plural] repent[ing]," not of "each one [singular] being baptized." The command to repent is given in the plural number and second person; the command to be baptized is given in the singular number and third person; the sins remitted belong to "you" in the plural number and second person. It is therefore improper to refer "remission of sins" to "baptism" as its cause, for this would mean that each one was baptized for the remission of the sins of all those present.

To take baptism here as causing the remission of sins would be to make the text say, "Let him be baptized for the remission of all your sins," and "Let him (another) be baptized for the remission of all your sins," and "Let him (yet another) be baptized for the remission of all your sins," and so on to each person in the group. Thus, each one would be baptized for the remission of the sins of all the people in the group.

But the grammar instead is quite clear. Remission is the result of repentance, not of baptism. You repent and your sins will be remitted. You all repent and the sins of all you will be remitted. Acts 2:38, therefore, does not teach the necessity of baptism for salvation.

___________________

I begin by saying that I agree and disagree.

Calvin Beisner is arguing from the Critical Text. I am personally critical of the critical text, so I also want to bring the Textus Receptus into the discussion.  The TR for Acts 2:38 reads:

Πέτρος [Peter] δὲ [and, then] ἔφη [said] πρὸς [toward] αὐτούς [them] Μετανοήσατε [repent] καὶ [and] βαπτισθήτω [be baptized] ἕκαστος [each] ὑμῶν [of you all] ἐπὶ [on, in] τῷ [the] ὀνόματι [name] Ἰησοῦ [of Jesus] Χριστοῦ [Christ] εἰς [into, for] ἄφεσιν [remission] ἁμαρτιῶν [of sins] καὶ [and] λήψεσθε [ye will receive] τὴν [the] δωρεὰν [gift] τοῦ [of the] ἁγίου [holy] πνεύματος [spirit].

There is a slight difference in the critical text, where I've highlighted the differences.
Πέτρος δὲ [ἔφη is omitted] πρὸς αὐτούς μετανοήσατε φησίν [declared] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν [of the] ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν [of you all] καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.

The differences are on prepositions and a slight verb change, but do not change the essential English translation at all. I underlined the additional preposition from which the writer argues that is only found in the critical text.

The directive that Peter gave is the same in both texts: μετανοήσατε [Aorist, Active, Imperative] καὶ [Conjunction] βαπτισθήτω [Aorist, Passive, Imperative] ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

The Aorist Tense does not have a direct equivalent in English. In the Greek, it is characterized by its emphasis on timelessness action, i.e., the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time.
The Active Voice is the same as in English: the subject is the doer or performer of the action.
The Passive Voice is the same as in English: the subject is the recipient of the action which is usually denoted by the use of a "be" verb.
The Imperative Mood is the same as in English: it expresses a command to perform an action by the order and authority of the one commanding.

Beisner is correct that μετανοήσατε [repent] is plural and βαπτισθήτω [be baptized] is singular, but this really is insignificant. The emphasis that Peter was portraying is that they ALL (plural) needed to repent, and that EACH of them (singular) needed to be baptized. Both verbs were imperative commands, not mere suggestions.

Now, to the question of what actually "remits" sin. Beisner is trying to pin the plural "repent" with the plural "you" in the critical text.  Please bear in mind that humon (of you all) is only found in the Alexandrian texts. It's not in the Stephens, Scrivner, or Byzantine texts). Beisner is forcing his point eisegetically, reading into Scripture what is not there.

Critical Text:
μετανοήσατε [V-AAM-2P] φησίν καὶ βαπτισθήτω [V-APM-3S] ἕκαστος [A-NSM] ὑμῶν [P2-GP] ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν

V-AAM-2P: Verb, Aorist Tense, Active Voice, Imperative Mood, 2nd person, plural (YOU ALL)
V-APM-3S: Verb, Aorist Test, Passive Voice, Imperative Mood, 3rd person, singular (HE/SHE/IT)
A-NSM: Adjective, Nominative Case, Singular Number, Masculine Gender (EACH or EVERY ONE)
P2-GP: Personal Pronoun, 2nd Person, Genitive, plural (OF YOU ALL)

Beisner, in the effort to get away from baptism as much as possible, completely ignores the imperative mood of baptisthēto simply because it is in the third person. If the word had been in the second person, then perhaps Beisner would have accepted it, but he fails to note that the whole phrase baptisthēto hekastos humon is in the second person. Humon is the second person plural pronoun which agrees with metanoēsate (second person plural verb).

Beisner tries to translate it "You (plural) repent and be baptized each one of you (singular) in the name of Jesus Christ for [the] remission of the sins of you (plural)." He blatantly fails to show it correctly as "[You] (plural) repent and each of you (plural) be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [the] remission of the sins of you (plural)." Now, I have great doubts about the critical text, but in this event it doesn't matter. Beisner's interpretation is forced because he doesn't believe baptism is necessary for anything. I will agree that baptism alone is not what removes sin, but the whole phrase is "repent AND be baptized." The two imperative verbs combined must be taken into consideration.

I believe that repentance and baptism are both part of a combined element that achieves "remission of sin." I realize that we like to separate the two when we associate repentance with "death" and baptism with "burial." That association still applies. My point does not destroy that analogy at all. I simply believe we stress the analogy at the cost of the imperative. Repent AND be baptized was the command that Peter gave. The result is remission of sin.

So, in one aspect I agree with Beisner, baptism alone is not what remits sin; it requires repentance. Yet I completely reject his overall objective: that baptism is of no effect or consequence.

[David Huston]

Excellent piece, Bro. Frazier. I wrote an article a few years which I titled Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? I called it this because I noticed that when you do a Google search for this question, there are many articles with this title, or something similar. I also noticed that almost all of these articles give the wrong answer. So about two years ago I posted my article on the Glorious Church website and when I did a Google search, it came up on page 35. Today it is on page 1. I sure would like to see it move up to the first position on the page. That way, when people search the question, Is baptism necessary for salvation? the first article they get will be mine, which has the correct answer.

I mention this to encourage network members to search that question from time to time, locate my article, and pull it up. Every time someone does that, it will help to move it up on the page. God bless.